it is the first experiment conducted by our team in agronomic crops. the site was lamjung campus, lamjung Nepal. It was done to know the performance of different varites of cowpea

1. 1

2. EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE
OF COWPEA (Vigna unguiculata L)
VARIETIES IN AGRONOMY FARM
OF LAMJUNG CAMPUS
Presented by:
Presented By:
Santosh Pathak
Project work 7th Sem, 2014
IAAS, Lamjung Campus
Sundarbazar
2

3. INTRODUCTION
 Cowpea ( Vigna unguiculata,
Vigna sinensis)
Common name: Crowder pea,
Black-eyed pea, Southern Pea
Family : leguminosae
Origin : Probably from Africa
Crop types : Annual legume
Climate and soil: warm season
crop, thrives between 21-35
degree celcius, loamy soil
Nutritional value: Protein,
Carbohydrates, vitamin and
minerals etc
3

4.  N fixation : 240 kg/ ha/yr
Enhances the soil fertility
Economic importance: In 2009,
pulses (excluding soybean) export and
import were of US$ 75,459,000 and
US$ 29,184,000, respectively (FAO
2011).
 . Grain legumes are grown in
319,472 ha with production and
productivity of 262,357 and 821
kg/ha, respectively (MoAC 2010).
Total production of cowpea in the
world is about 2.27million tons
 Other uses: Food, fodder, forage,
fuel, shelter for animals etc
4

5. Objectives:
 To study the growth, yield attributing characters
and yield of cowpea genotypes.
5

6. MATERIAL AND METHODS
a. Site selection: Agronomy
farm of lamjung
campus(upland)
b. Field preparation: Deep
Ploughed by tractor, all weeds,
stones, bricks and harmful
pests were removed and final
field preparation was done
after 1st ploughing .
c. Seed rate: Two seeds per spot
d. Method of sowing : Line
sowing
Fig: Site selection
Fig: Field preparation 6

7. e. Plot size: 2m X 2m = 4m2
 Gross plot: 4m2 (5 rows of
2m length)
 Net plot: 2.4 m2 by
deducting one border row
from each side
f. Spacing: 40 cm RR and 20
cm PP
g. Planting time :5th sept,
2014
Contd…..
Fig: Adjusting 4m2 plot size
Fig: Spacing 40X20 cm

8. Contd…….
h. Design: Random complete
block design(RCBD)
 Replication: 4
 Treatment: 6
Rep 4 T4 T1 T3 T6 T2 T5
Rep 3 T6 T3 T5 T1 T4 T2
Rep 2 T5 T6 T4 T2 T3 T1
Rep 1 T1 T5 T3 T4 T6 T2
Fig: RCBD framework at class
8

9. Contd…….....
List of genotypes as treatment
Treatment Genotypes
T1 IT 99K- 573-2-1
T2 IT 86F-2062-5
T3 IT 93K-452-1
T4 IT 98K-205-8
T5 Prakash (Standard check)
T6 Malepatan(Local check)
9

10. Contd……………
i. Manure and Fertilizer: 6
tons of FYM plus 20:40:20
kg NPK ha-1 , Half dose
of urea was top dressed
before planting and half
after planting
j. Intercultural operation:
Weeding and hoeing,1st
weeding was done on 19th
sept and 3rd was on 11th
Oct.
Fig: Weed in our plot
Fig: Manual weeding 10

11. Contd………
k. Plant protection: to
control aphid and pod borer,
Cypermethrin 2ml/l was
sprayed on 2nd of Oct.
Diathene-M-45(SAAF) was
sprayed on 2nd Oct for
damping off.
For rodents, Ratonil was
placed.
Fig:Fungicide application
11

12. Contd…….......
l. Irrigation: irrigation was
done frequently about 15-20
days.
Sprinkler irrigation and pipe
irrigation
Fig: Irrigating the plot
12

13. Contd……..
Sampling and data collection:
Sampling on biomass and dry matter
was started after one month and
continued on 15 days interval (20th of
Asoj, 5th kartik, 20th Kartik and 5th
mangsir).
Samples from each plot consists of 2
plants leaving boarder row and Plants
were uprooted and fresh weight and
dry weight of individual plant parts
were taken in our lab.
Datas on different parameters was
taken and analysed by using MSTAT. 13

14. Result and Discussion
Plant height:
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
t1 t2 t3 t4 t5 t6
PHT
PHT
Figure 1: Performance of genotypes on Plant Height
 Highly significant
• Early maturity genotypes;Dwarf
plants, Late maturity: Highest plant ht
• Cause : Difference in genotypes
: Envtal. Fluctuation
Ram et. al(1994)
Plant ht reflects canopy of plant,
contributing photosynthetic activity
having indirect effect on seed yield
Cowpea plant decreased in height in
relation to the progression in the
volume of water supplied.( Science
Daily 2008)
Higher effective nodules, with
increasing vegetative growth
14

15. Contd…….
Pods per plant:
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
PPP
PPP
Figure 2: Performance of genotypes on Pods Per Plant
 Significant, T1 max(18.50),T4
min(12.25)
 Phenotypic traits with high
contributions to genetic variability in
legumes. E.g. Grass pea Turk et al 2007,
pigeon pea Upadhya et. Al 2007, Black
gram Singh et. al 2010
15

16. Contd……..
Seeds per pods
11.2
11.4
11.6
11.8
12
12.2
12.4
12.6
12.8
13
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
SPP
SPP
Figure 3: Performance of genotypes on Seeds
Per Pod
 Insignificant, max T2 (12.75), min T4
(11.75)
Larger pods with maximum no. of seed,
while shorter less .
Causes: Different genotypes or Envtl
condition promote early maturity(min time
available for seed setting for development)
Muhammad et al 1994,
Amanullah et al. 2000
Plant height affects seed per pod
( Thiyagarajan and rajasekaran 1993,
Damarany 1994)
16

17. Contd…………
Pod length
0
5
10
15
20
25
t1 t2 t3 t4 t5 t6
PLT
PLT
Figure 4: Performance of genotypes on Pod Length
 Highly significant, max T2 (21.00cm)
min T1 (14.69cm)
 6 different genotypes under medium
rainfall condition , reported significant
variation for pod length.(Muhammad
1994)
17

18. Contd…….
Grain yield:
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
GYD (Ton/ha)
GYD (Ton/ha)
Figure 5: Performance of genotypes on Grain Yield
 Highly significant, max T5(1.125 cm)
,min T1 (0.5075cm)
Peculiarity of genotypes with
variation in yield attributed to climatic
diversity and genetic make up.
Significant difference in seed yield
and showed positive relationship with
seed per pod, seed wt, plant height
and pod length
(Amanullah 2000, muhammad 1994),
Ram et al,1994)
18

19. Contd…..
Biological yield
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
BYD (Ton/ha)
BYD (Ton/ha)
Fig6: Performance of genotypes on biological yield
 Significant , T4 max(4.40),min
T2(3.575)
19

20. Contd…..
Test wt
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
TWT(gm)
TWT(gm)
Figure 7: Performance of genotyped on Test Weight.
Highly significant,T6 Max(182.2 gm),T2
min(124.5)
Difference in seed wt: time factor for
accumulation of assimilates, Different
genetic makeup
Amanullah et.al 2000
20

21. Contd……
Biomass yield
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
BMYD (Ton/ha)
BMYD (Ton/ha)
Figure8 : performance of genotypes on Bio-mass Yield
 Insignificant, T6 Malepatan Max
(3.580), T5 Prakash Min (2.953)
Vegetative plant phase useful for
development of optimum canopy for
high yield.
 Increase in days to flowering allows for
proper vegetative growth leading more
number of peduncles, flowers and other
yield traits per plant
Ishiyaku and Singh, 2003
21

22. Contd……
Harvest index
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
t1 t2 t3 t4 t5 t6
HI
HI
Fig 9: Performance of genotypes on HI
HI= Economic yield/ biological
yield
Significant, T5 max(27.86%), T1
min( 12.55%)
T2 and T3 are statistically at par.
22

23. Conclusion
Able to know the performance of the various genotypes
compared to the released variety Prakash and Malepatan.
-T1 is superior : pods/plant and plant ht
- T2 is superior : Pod length
- T4 is superior : Biological yield
-T5 is superior: Grain yield
- Test weight: T6 (max) T2(min)
We concluded that the released variety Prakash and
Malepatan are superior in various parameters but some
genotypes also performed well due to genotypic,
environmental and G*E interaction
23

24. Recommendation
 Based on farmers preference with respect to
the production traits of various genotypes in
Sundarbazar locality:
-For seeds production : Prakash (T5)
-For Vegetable purpose: Malepatan and IT
99K- 573-2-1 (T1)
-For forage purpose: IT 98K-205-8 (T4)
24

25. Acknowledgement
Thankful to our respected teachers Dr. B.B
Adhikari, Dr. L.P. Amgain,Dr. Madhav Neupane
and Mr. Roshan subedi for their supervison and
guidance during the Project work research.
Thanks for our lab technician, friends, Helping
hands for their Co-ordination
Last but not the least the authors, researchers
and their co-workers on legume crops.
25

26. Thank you for your kind attention
Any queries......????.
26