desert grasses germplasm of panicum antidotale...
Post on 29-Feb-2020
6 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
DESERT GRASSES GERMPLASM OF PANICUM ANTIDOTALE ANDLASIURUS SCINDICUS FROM CHOLISTAN, PAKISTAN
By
Mohammad Arshad
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree
of*
i
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
IN
BOTANY
I
CHOLISTAN INSTITUTE OF DESERT STUDIES
Islamla University, Bahawalpur
Pakistan
1996
.
!r
r
f I
; .V s 2J&—~ g>:s£ta.)Xcb&ii k-c
nr C V d >1 i+ctÿv
V-
Higher Education CpdimissioaI ibrar. , IsHMnabad
The Controller of Examinations,Islamia University,Bahawalpur.
Acc. No 2o$ PriceDale Za.iA-jL** 3 %
J--’ . i5ÿÿ
iI, the supervisor of this thesis, certify that the contents and form
of the thesis submitted by Mr. Muhammad Arshad have been found satisfactory
and recommend that it be processed for evaluation by the External Examiners for
* 1
the award of Ph. D. degree.
!
fvtAÿ c\C> I
>/ nIP •
(Prof.Dr.Altaf-ur-Rehman Rao)
Supervisor'
i
I>
mmm
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I offer my humblest thanks to Almighty Allah for bestowing upon me the
potential and ability for successful accomplishment of this piece of research work.
I invoke peace for Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) who is far
ever torch of guidance and knowledge for humanity as a whole.
[ The work presented in this manuscript was accomplished under the
inspiring guidance, generous assistance and enlightened supervision of Prof. Dr.
Altaf-ur-Rchman Rao. I am facing a dearth of words to express my profound
thanks for his untiring help which made it possible for me to complete this work
successfully. His efforts towards the inclusion of the spirit of constant hard work
and the maintenance of professional integrity, besides other valuable words of
advice, will always serve as a beacon of light throughout the course of my life.
:| 1 offer my cordial and sincere thanks to Prof. Dr. Muhammad Belal
Sukhera, Vice Chancellor, Islamia University, Bahawalpur, for his moral support
and encouragement during the completion of this thesis.
I am highly grateful to Prof. Dr. Munir Aklitar, Dean, Faculty of Sciences,
Islamia University, Bahawalpur for his kind cooperation, valuable suggestions and
encouragement throughout the course of research work.ISpecial thanks are extended to Mr. Qalser Iftikhar Sheikh, Department of
Chemistry, Islamia University, Bahawalpur, for the provision of facilities, valuable
suggestions during the chemical analysis of grasses. , ,
t
I am indeed grateful to Dr. Gliulam Akbar, Deputy Director, Arid Zone
Research Station, (PARC), Bahawalpur for his overall kindness, sympathies,
encouragement and constructive criticism during the course of this research
work.
1 take opportunity to record special thanks to Dr. Itana Muhammad Iqbal,
Joint Director, Cholistan Institute of Desert Studies, Islamia University,
Bahawalpur for his sympathetic attitude and every possible help during the
finalization of this manuscript.
1 heartily thank all my colleagues at Cholistan Institute of Desert Studies for
their well wishes during the study period.
Kvcrlasting thanks are due to my wife Dr. Mrs. Surraya Dar, Associate
Professor, department of Arabic Islamia University, Bahawalpur for her awesome
help, adorable company, extreme cooperation, encouraging attitude and good
wishes throughout my research work.
(MOHAMMAD ARSHAD)
mm
CONTENTS
PageChapter No.
Introduction 1I
Review of Literature 6 »II
Materials and Methods 19111
30ResultsIV
A) Paniamt aniidolale\
30Morphological Charactersi)
66Nutritional Characters*ÿ)
B) LasiurusscinJiais
68Morphological Charactersi)
96Nutritional Charactersii)
114DiscussionV
119SummaryVI
124ReferencesVI1\
V,
\
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Pakistan is a tropical country lying in 23.82 to 36.36 latitude and 61.4 to
75-8 longitude with a total area of 79.61 million hectares (m.ha). Out of the total
land mass, only 36.2% is cultivated while 17.9% remains as culturable waste. Apart
from irrigated and forested areas, 40.8% is unavailable for agriculture (Sandhu
1993). The culturable waste is an arid and semi-arid land-mass and is primarily
being used as rangeland; its productivity is far below its potential (Kao, et al.,
1989). About 41 m.ha. area of the country is considered as arid that includes 10
m.ha. of sandy deserts (Akram 1987, Abbasi 1987). The hot deserts of the country
include Cholistan, Thai, Tharparkar and Coastal belt.
Cholistan desert lies in the south of Bahawalpur in the Punjab between
latitudes 27° 45’ north and longitudes 69° 52’ and 73° 05’ east; covering an area
of 2.6 m.ha. (Akram 1987). The climate of Cholistan desert is basically arid with
periodic long droughts. The temperature during summer reaches 50° C or more
with extremely reduced humidity. High summer temperatures cause low
pressure resulting in dust storms. During winter temperature ranges between 5°
C to 15° C. The annual rainfall is irregular, inadequate, highly variable. The
average annual precipitation based on 30 years average (1961-1990) is 168 mm
(FAO 1993). Most of the rainfall is received from July to September (monsoon)
and December to March (Akram et al., 1991). Whenever, bulk of rainfall is
received during monsoon, Cholistan desert turns into a green and rich grazing-
land, supporting the animal population well and appears to be very thriving and
lively grazing ground.
2
After the monsoon rainfall (August, September) when adequate pasturage
is available for livestock alongwith the rainwater in tobas re-supplied by surface
runoff, and when temperatures are bearable, the pastoralists then follow the
nomadic lifestyle moving from one toba to the next as water and fodder get
exhausted. During December they start moving towards wells and ’Lunds’ at semi¬
permanent settlements in the desert. IJy March they migrate to nearby fringe of the
irrigated area and their livestock feeds on whatever growth is available on the
drylands. Livestock casualties are common during long journeys within the
desert undertaken in search of water and forage particularly on the incidence of a
severe drought.
The soils of Cholistan desert are mainly loamy, partly gravelly with some
roek-outcrops interspaced with sand dunes, undulating, uneven contours and
levelled flats. Out of 2.6 m.ha. 1.3 m.ha. comprises stable and unstable sand
dunes, 0.95 sandy and 0.06 m.ha. loamy soils; the remaining 0.44 m.ha. arc clayey
levelled flats called as "dahars" (Abdullah ct al., 1991).
There are no permanent, natural bodies of surface water available in
Cholistan. Ix>w rainfall, high rate of water infiltration into the sand, and high
evaporation rate leads toward aridity. The underground water at depths of 30 to
90 m, or more is brackish with total dissolved salts ranging from 9000 to 24000
ppm (WASID, 1963). Sweet water occurs in isolated lenses but will soon gets
exhausted until the rain restores this aquifer.
Topographically, Cholistan desert comprises "Dahars" and sand dunes. The
"Dahars" may be flat, levelled and clayey pieces of land measuring several miles in
length and a mile or so in width. The Hat pieces of land are amazingly levelled
03E
3
with very hard tops nearly impervious to rain-water beyond few centimetres. The
salinity and sodicity further aggravate the situation, rendering the "Dahars"
unsupportive of plant life therefore remain plantiess entities. Dunes,
predominantly, are coarse to fine sanded structures with variable masses and
heights. The topography of the Cholistan desert is largely disturbed by the sheet
movement of sand on a large scale leading to their restructuring including the
drainage system, forcing the water table to fall, consequently depleting the
vegetation cover and increasing the desertification (Arshad and Kao, 1994).
The palco-ccologists consider that the true grasses developed at least 6 to
12 million years ago (Van Dyn et. al., 1978). Grasses arc the most important group
of plants of any rangeland, not only as livestock feed, but also as soil binders.
These arc widely found in the humid tropics, arid areas, and alpine peaks,
(Metcalfe and Nelson, 1985), thus they have the widest range of adaptation as
compared with other families of the flowering plants. Grasses can survive
extremes of environmental conditions like frost, drought, fire and grazing, more
so they have high reproductive capability and quick dispersal, In the past, grasses
have been regarded as a type of vegetation that comes up naturally with rains and
after providing fodder to grazing animals, die out.
iTtc grasses stand as the highest potential yicldcrs of starch and protein
comparable to any other cultivated plant, being the most palatable and nutritive
stuff, grasses prove to the ice cream species for the grazing animals, because of
the proliferation of new roots and decay of old ones, the organic matter and
nitrogen in the soil is increased, improving its structure, texture and fertility.
=3
I* •
4
"ITic endemic vegetation of Cholistan desert is typical of any arid region
consisting of xcrophytic species well adapted to the extreme seasonal
temperatures, drought and to a wide variety of cdaphic conditions, the principal
adaptation, being the tolcrancc/rcsistance to the scarcity of moisture and salinity.
The perennial grass species growing in Cholistan desert are: Lasiurus scindicus,
Panicum antidotale, Panicum turgidum, Cenchms ciliuris, Cenchrus setigei-us,
Ochtbocbloa compressa, Sporobolus iocladus, Aeluropis lagopoides and
Cymbopogon jwaranensa. These grass species produce fodder
environment of the Cholistan desert after appropriate precipitation of about 250
mm per annum or so. Lasiurus scindicus and Panicum antidotale being the
commonest and the most promising species for forage production, thus were
chosen for the present research endeavours.
Lasiurus scindicus thrives well in Cholistan desert in medium to high
semistabili/ed sand dunes producing high forage yield and good ground cover;
but remains absent from calcareous, hard and flat habitats. It has been regarded
as the "king grass" based on its high aerial cover (Saxcna 1992). This grass can
survive extreme arid conditions and remains productive for a period of 6 to 10
years (Yadav 1984). Panicum antidotale is well adapted to the sandy loam to
loamy sanded parts of the desert generally in association with Capparis decidua
and Prosopis cineraria avoiding ’dahars’ (Kao and Arshad 1991)-
in hot
Lasiurus scindicus and Panicum antidotale arc well adapted to Cholistan
etc. Ondesert and reproduce well under multiple stresses of drought and salinity
this basis one can hypothesize that these species are the products of natural
useful gcrmplasm, thus their biologicalselection and possess very
characterization becomes absolutely necessary to understand the mechanism of
their survival in the harshest environment.
i
5
Various “ccozoncs" of Cholistan desert depict a fairly good amount of
useful/exploitable ecotypic genetic variability of Lasiurus scindicus and Punicym
antidotale. Its geographical distribution to the varying landscapes viz, dunes,
sloppy contours, droughted and salinity patches of the desert was particularly
fascinating, inviting for immediate scientific studies of the endemic ecotypes. To
unearth this hidden genetic treasurer wide ranging studies involving,
morphologieal and nutritional investigations may be inevitably needed. The
materials may exhibit extremely valuable against multiple stress involving high
temperature, severe drought, grazing pressure, tolerance against salinity and
sodicity and other malaises.
Due to the paramount importance and magnitude of genetic variability of
Lasiurus scindicus and Panicum antidotale, the present study was designed to
evaluate the comparative efficiency of different ecotypes based on the level of
tolerance to an array of stresses. Under this evaluation programme various
morphological and nutritional parameters of both the grass species have been
investigated.
;.!ÿV,
\
I
Review ofLiterature
* \
i
)
. *
\
•>
Pt"-'-,-llVTSTÿ>
::
6
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Bosch and Thcunisscn, (1992) reported that ccotypic variation is a
phenomenon in various grass species reileeted by the presence of
morphologically distinctness
common
and specific topographical and habitat
preferences. These ecotypes could react differently to various environmental
factors, explaining that a species could be classified into different ecological
status groups, depending on a geographical distribution or habitat condition
with which it is associated.
Inherent, genetic ccotypic variability present in the perennial grass>
Cymbopogon jwarancusa, collected from 32 habitats in the Cholistan desert,
was evaluated by Arshad et. al, (1995). It was found .that ecotypes collected
from different locations of Cholistan desert showed considerable genetic
variabilities with regard to the quaniiialive morphological characters.
Sheikh and Khan, (1986) evaluated some ecotypes of Ccnchfus ciliaris
and Panicum antidotale under Eucalyptus camalduletisis near Peshawar,
Pakistan. A Panicum antidotale ecotype from Arizona gave higher fodder DM
yields (4.656 t/ha) than the two from Sudan and FAO yielding 3-119 And 3.35
t/ha, respectively. „
Noor (1991) determined the comparative performance of ten ecotypes
of Cencbrus ciliaris under Barani conditions at Peshawar. High amount of
ccotypic variation was recorded and the ecotype from India (269) showed best
performance and out yilded as compared to all other ecotypes.
I' V)f! :
7
i'ujimoto (1993) studied characteristics of orchardgrass populations
collected from 7 regions of Japan for their adaptability potential. Potential
Populations from the Kanto region showed the best performance, indicating a
high adaptation to the region.
Five strains of Cenchrus ciliaris L viz. 214, 262, 303, 357 and 358
screened by Puri and Paliwal, (1976), for a number of characters. Strain 303
showed maximum survival producing maximum forage yield followed by
strain No. 214. _ .
were
Coefficients of variation, hcritability, genetic advance, correlations and
path analysis were studied by Gupta ct.al., (1985) in relation to eight forage
quality characters of 33 strains of Lasitirus scindicus. Wide range of variations
were observed in the strains with regard to dry matter, lignin and crude
protein which exhibited high hcritability and genetic advance.
\
Mertia, (1986) evaluated five strains of Lasiurus scindicus viz. CAZRI
317, 318, 319, 353 and 565. Observations on plant height, number of tillers
and basal area of six randomly selected plants revealed that forage production
over live years was significantly (P<0.01) higher in strain 353. Yield attributes
ol Lasiurus scindicus correlated well with trends in environmental attributes,
specially rainfall.
Variability, hcritibilily, genetic advance, correlation and path analysis
yield attributes under twostudied by Yadav ct. al., (1986) for
environments using 81 genotypes of Lasiurus scindicus Henr. Maximum
variability was observed for green forage yield followed by dry matter yield
• were
and tiller and branch numbers.
-fi!
8
Johnson, ct. al. (1989) studied morphological and physiological
variation among ecotypes of sweet-vetch (Hedysarum boreale Nutt). This
study considered seedling establishment characteristics, nitrogen fixation
capability, nutritive value and clustring relationships among 11 putative
ecotypes of sweetvetch. A total of 44 morphological and* physiological variables
were evaluated in green house and field experiments. Although cluster analysis
procedures indicated differences among the ecotypes, this clustering was not
always clearly related to characteristics of the collection site. Sufficient genetic
diversity was present among ecotypes to assure adaptation to a wide array of
sites and to facilitate improvement through breeding and selection.
Yadav ct. al, (1974) observed that in 28 Cenchrus ciliaris cultivars plant
height, leaf breadth, spike length and fodder yield were positively and
significantly correlated with each other at the genotypic and phenotypic levels.
'filler number was positively correlated with height, spike length and leaf 1
** breadth.
Rai et. al., (1982) studied the performance of eight strains of Cenchrus
setigerus vahl, and observed significance variation in forage yield. The ratio of
aboveground/ belowground biomass also followed the pattern of dry matter
production showing thereby high production of forage yield as compared to
the root and rhizomes in these strains. The crude protein yield was maximum
in S-175 followed by Pusa yellow and yellow anjan. The author in (1980)
conducted studies on the height-weight relationship of the twelve cultivars of
Cenchrus ciliaris and eight cultivars of Panicum antidotale. The differences
in distribution pattern of weight considerably narrowed down when 80%
height was clipped in all the cultivars of both the grass species.
If
9
Sharma and Verma (1983) evaluated five promising strains of Cenebrus
ciliaris, viz No. 357, 358, 657, 3108 and Molopo buffel. Mean height per plant
was maximum in strains 3108, 358, and Molopo buffel and it was of the order
of 108.8, 106.0 and 103.6 cm, respectively. Mean maximum number of tillers
per plant (58.7) were, in strain 657. Air dried forage yield in 358, 3108, 357,
657 and Molopo buffel was 29.1, 29-1, 27.2, 26.0 and 26.1 q/ha, respectively.
The author in (1983) studied five strains of Cenebrus setigerus viz. 76, 175,
296, 413 and 348. Strain Nos. 296 and 175 gave superior performance. They
exhibited least mortality after five years of establishment.
Phenotypic variation within and among six populations of Trillium
erectum was examined by Ringius and Chmielewski (1987) in southern
Ontario. The general symmetry of the flower was confirmed although there
was a tendency for the lower petals and sepals to be longer than the upper
ones. Within populations, variation was related to the overall expansion of
the aerial shoot. Only one-third of the variation in floral variables was
dependent on plant size.
Aggarwal et al., (1980) studied the effect of seasonal changes on herbage
production and N and P composition of Lasiurus scinclicus grassland
community during 1974 and 1975 in western Rajasthan. Rainfall was found to
have significant and positive relationship with the above-ground/bclow-
ground biomass ratio. The requirement of nitrogen by this grassland
community was found to be two and half limes greater than its phosphorus
requirement.
Twelve genotypes of Cenebrus ciliaris were evaluated by Yadav and Mai
(1988) for dry matter yield, crude protein, leaf area, leaf-stem ratio, root
weight and rhizome weight under ten fertility levels (0 kg N/ha, 40 kg N/ha)
£
10
and three defoliation stresses (50%, 70%, and 90%). Significant differences
among genotypes, nitrogen levels and defoliation stresses were observed for\
all the characters studied. Among the interaction variances, genotype x
defoliation variance revealed significant effect of defoliation on the
performance of genotypes for all the characters.
Seedling emergence and survival responses of 7 warm-season grasses to
6 combinations of initial wet and dry-day watering sequences were studied in a
green house by Frasier et. al„ (1985). The number of seedlings produced in
the first wet period developed sufficient vigour to survive subsequent drought
or dry periods. Survival characteristics differed within cv. of same spp. and
were not directly affected by total water loss. The same author in (1986)
evaluated 5 warm-season grasses in sand, wetted to 10% moisture and given
sufficient water to return the substrate to this moisture level on "wet" days in
various sequences. Panicum antidotala cv. A-130 had 21-62% emergence with
2 or more initially wet days and < 46% mortality during the dry period; final
seeding survival was 34-58%.
Twenty warm season grass species were grown by Okamoto ct. al.,
(1976) with and without irrigation, during the dry season. The greatest
increase in dry matter yield were 30 to 40% in Sudan grass, Panicum
antidotala and Setaria sphacclata. Drought resistance was evaluated,
decrease in yield, plant height, leaf area etc were being the greatest in
Bermuda grass and least in Pennisatum aniaricanutn, buffel grass, Sudan
grass and Panicum antidotala.
• i
Coyne and Bradford. (1985) grew 17 perennial C4 grasses including 5
native (1. Andropogon hallii cv. , 2. Panicum Virgatum cv. , 1. Sorghastrum
nutans cv. and 1. Boutcloua gracilis and 12 old world IMucstems
11
(Uothriochlora spp.) in a green house under adequate watered and limited
watering regimes. The exotics produced more biomass and had more leaf area
per plant, more tiller and leaves per tiller than the natives. Total plant biomass
and leaf blade area were reduced over 40% by a limiting watering regime.
Akbar et. al., (1994) raised and evaluated eight cool-season and three
warm season exotic grass species for above ground dry matter biomass in
Mastung and Tomagh areas in Baluchistan. Tall and pubescent wheatgrass
exhibited high dry matter biomass in southern upland region (Mastung). In
north-eastern region (Tomagh), weeping lovegrass outperformed in dry mailer
biomass production. However, some other species such as tall wheatgrass,
pubescent wheatgrass, thickspike wheatgrass, orchardgrass and steppe wild-
rye also exhibited encouraging results. Mixture of cool season and warm
season grasses proved higly successful.
Sheley and Larson (1994) quantified the effects of interference between
seedlings of chcatgrass and yellow starthisile and to compare growth of
isolated individuals of these species. Shoot weight, root weight, leaf area, and
total root length of isolated individuals were similar. Yellow starthistlc root
penetrated deeper into the soil than did chcatgrass roots 22 days alter planting.
Singh et. al., (1985) studied that height-weight relationship in Panicum
maximum, Panicum coloratum, Panicum antidotale and their deffernt cv,
better explained by parabolic curve than power curve.was
compared by Machado, (1986) on anLight Cenchrus ciliaris cv. were
irrigated and‘-red ferrallitic soil at I’erico over 2 years. There were cv.
deferences in pasture height in the 1st. year but not in the 2nd,
: ""4SF
13
Gutterman, (1992) evaluated ccophysiology of Negan uplaned grasses
and found that day length influences the phenology, age of flower-bud
appearence and life span of some annuals inhibiling'the Negev. The longer the
day-length, the earlier the flowering.
The ecological amplitude of the important desert grass Panicum
lurgidum was reviewed by Kernick (1992). The presence of I*, turgidum in
arid areas with both winter and summer rainfall regimes with marked
temperature fluctuations suggests that a significant range of ecotypic variation
exists.
Resurrection in grasses (Poaccac) in Austrlia was studied by Lazaridcs,
(1992). He elaborated that field and laboratory evidences show the existence of
ten species of Australian grasses with foliage which can revive after
dehydration.'
The variation of 52 morphological and anatomical character was .
analysed by Dube and Morisset (1987) and 1987 in 32 populations of Festuca
rubra L, sensu lato (Poaccae) from salt marshes, coastal rocks, coastal sands
and anthropogenic sites in eastern Quebec. The results showed that the
variation of characters is essentially continuous within and between
populations, that some populations are much more variable than others, and
that on the whole, character variation patterns are mainly related to ecological
rather than geographical factors.:
Lad, (1992) studied genotypic root response to stress. 4 sorghum
genotypes indicated that M 35-1 was adapted best to drought stress by having a
large root spread, root penetration, plant height and leaf area. All genotypes
produced the greatest total biomass under in situ field conditions whereas the
:
iI
•—jp-. :
13
open trench method and artificial profile method resulted in poor biomass
development, the later method caused the roots to die after the booting stage.
Twenty stains of 6 tropical grasses were grown by Butt qt. al., (1990)
under rainfed conditions at PRAC, Islamabad to determine their dry matter
yield Cenchrus ciliaris (RM 269), Panicum antidotale (RM 264) and
Pennisetum purpurenum (A 146) found to be the best one regarding to the
character studied.
Voigt et. al., (1986) evaluated gcrmplasm of Eragrostis curvula and E.
lehmanniana for in vitro dry matter disappearance, palatibility (animal
preference) among genotypes and forage vigor (wcight/plant). Sufficient
genetic variation was present among genotypes studied.r *
Bokhari et. al., (1987) studied adaptive statcgics of nine dominant
grasses in terms of stomatal resistance, rate of transpiration, water potential of
plants, and soil-water use efficiency at 3 locations in Kingdom of Saudia.
Results indicated that variation among the characters studied was high and
special strategics have been developed by the grasses to ensure their survival
rather than hgih productivity.
Genetic diversity of fourteen genotypes of North American Soybean
studied by Gizlicc et. al., (1993) and investigaed genotpic relationships among
14 characters. The strains exhibited wide range of genetic diversity.
Multivariate analysis collapsed the traits into four principal components that
exhibited 80% of the total genotypic variation among the strains.
was
Nineteen genotypes of weeping lovegrass (E. curvula) were evaluated
by Tischler and Voigt (1990) to determin variabilities among leaf
14
characteristics. The authors noted that high variation and relationship
existed among the genotypes regarding the characteristics studied.
were
Souza and Sorrels (1991) studied relationship among seventy genotypes
of North American oat germplasm. Cluster analysis was used to indentify*
genotypes with similar adaptations. According to the variations and similarities
four groups of genotypes were identified.
Casler (1995) estimated and described quantitative genetic
variation in the USDA perennial ryegrass collections. Cluster analysis' was. *
found useful in indentifying groups of accessions. High degree of phenotypic
variation was observed within the entire collections.
Pedreira and Brown (1996) studied Physiology, morphology and
growth of individual plants of selected and unselectcd Bahiagrass populations
and observed that the selection for increased yield in this grass resulted in
taller plants with fewer rchizomes, a greater tendency for winter injury and a
greater susceptibility to poulation shifts under close, frequent mowing.
Ahad (1993) conducted an experiment to evaluate morphological and
ananomical differences in sixteen ecotypes of Cenchrus ciliaris, collected from
Cholistan desert, the author determined huge ecotypic variations preent
among the ecotypes. 112 was regarded as the best one having some special
xesophytic conditions.
Ashraf and Khan (1990) studied the effect of drought on vegetative
growth of ten wheat varieties, S-232, M-154, HCWSN, Sarsabz , V-8001, Pak-
15800, Uarani-83, 1AJ-26S, Pak-81 and Pak-15794 grown for 30 days. A class•*.
;
13
relationship between biomass production and water content, and
relation was noticed between all the above varieties. High biomass yielding
varieties, M-154, Pak-15800 and I3arani-83 showed higher water potential (less
negative) turgor potential and relative water contents as compared to others.
water
The source of common variation of fodder yield and seven of its
components in Lasiums scindicus were analysed by Yadav (1987) using
Centroid method of factor analysis. Three factors together accuntcd for most
of the inter-correlations. Tiller number, branch number, green fodder yield
and dry matter yield grouped as productivity factor; culm thickness, leaf
breadth and leaf length as growth factor; plant height, leaf stem raio and leaf
breadth as forage quality factor. He found that growth and productivity factors
play a pivotal role towards diversity in the Lasiurus scindicus.
Variation in seed germination among species and among ecotypes of the
same species have been attributed to differences in seed development,
dormancy mechanisms, seed size, different responses to temperature, water,
light and gas exchange conditions. (Koller 1972, Mayer and Poljakoff-Maybcr
1982, Peart 1979, 1984, Fowter 1988).
Farooq ct. al., (1989) collected samples of nine desert grasses,
experimentally grown in Range Management Farm at Jamrud and analyzed for
fibers, protein, carbohydrates and fat conents to calculate nutritive ratios of the
grasses. The results obtained were compared with those of common grasses of
Cholistan, and Thai and found considerable variation present among them.
Gul-e-Rana et. al., (1990) did proximate chemical analysis of seven
ecotypes of Panicum antidotulc collected from Cholistan desert to determine
their palatibility and nutritive variations. All the ecotypes showed a
i\msmm
16
considerable amount of variation regarding the protein, fibre, ash and
moisture contents and mineral constituents of seeds.
Dhir, et. al., (1984), (1985) studied mineral nutrients of 19 arid
grass species growing under identical soil and climatic conditions.
Considerable inter-specific variations were recorded in potassium,, manganese
and magnesium but most remarkable variation was of sodium where no two
species behaved alike. In comparison to the foliage of associated shrubs and
trees, grasses were considerably low in calcium, magnesium and potassium
but outstandingly high in copper and zinc.
zone
Micro-elements composition of natural vegetation in the arid Rajasthan
was studied by Sharma, et. al., (1984). Results showed considerable variation
within and between species. Grasses with a range of 44.9 to 99.2 ppm
appeared relatively rich in manganese content. Similar was the picture in
respect to zinc and copper.
Protein and phosphorus contents were determined by Mondal and
Chakravarty (1968) from five perennial pasture species viz. Cencbrus ciliaris,
C. setigerus, Panicum antidotale, Dichantbium annulatum and Lasiurus
scindicus. Protein percentage varied from 8.65 to 14.28 in Panicum antidotale
and 7.05 to 14.65 in Lasiurus scindicus. Phosphorus contents varied 0.410 to
0.565 in Panicum antidotale and 0.390 to 0.637 in Lasiurus scindicus.
Dutta and Dhir, (1980) analysed above ground biomass of desert
grasses namely Lasiurus scindicus, Cencbrus ciliaris and Cencbrus setigerus
for macro and trace elements content, Lasiururs scindicus distinguished itself
with very low conceniration of sodium and very high concentration of sodium*
and higher concentration of calcium and magnesium.
17
Nutritional value of Lasiurus scindicus (Sewan) pasture in spring
(March - April) and autumn (August-September) seasons was studied by
Thakur, et.al., (1985). Digestibility of all nutrients was higher in autumn.
Digestibility of the crude protein was very low (17.9%) in spring and high
(75.1%) in autumn. The intake of crude protein, digestible crude protein and
total digestible nutrients was higher in autumn than that of spring. In spring
the "Sewan'’ pasture was poor in digestible crude protein and total digestible
nutrients.
Joshi, (1985) investigated the influence of water stress on growth
behaviour and nutrient value of Panicum antidotale in pot trials. Water stress
adversely affected total biomass and biomass of different organs. Relative
growth rate, total leaf area and specific leaf area decreased due to water stress,
but the effect of water stress on leaf weight ratio was not marked.
Kanodia and Rai, (1981) investigated the changes in forage yield and
chemical composition of 18 cultivars belonging to six grass species under
rainfed condition. Results revealed that most of these grasses and their
cultivars having less moisture requirements gave maximum quality .forage
yield during September, while the highest quality dry matter yield was
obtained during October.
Plants of crested wheatgrass and western wheatgrass were field growni
and sampled by Prank (1994) to determine prolime, water soluble
carbohydrates, and abscisic acid concentration from about the 4-lcaf through
heading stages of development. Proline concentration increased in both
species as water stress increased; proline decreased in crested wheatgrass but
increased in western wheatgrass as plant development advanced. Abscisic acid
and carbohydrate concentrations increased with water stress. Ihese results
\
1 '• '"S
18
suggest that western wheatgrass in more tolerant of water stress under field
conditions than crested wheatgrass.
A repeated greenhouse study was conducted by Newman and Moser,
(1988) to determine root morphology differences at the third-leaf stage and
nine cool season forage grasses and nine warm season forage grasses. Most
cool-season grasses had no or little subcoleoptilc internode elongation except
Aveneae species. Seminal root development was greater in species of the
Triticeae tirbe. Adventitious root development occurcd by the three leaf stage
on species of all tribes except for Andropogoncae members. Stage of root
development did not coneidc with the stage of shoot development among
species.
19
CHAPTER III
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Bcgining 1986 several expedition were fielded in Cholistan desert to collect
the perennial gcrmplasm of the desert grasses including Panicum antidotale
and Lasiurus scindicus from different habitats. Environmental conditions and the
edaphic factors varied greatly from site to site inside the desert. Selection of
habitats for grass collections was based upon the inter-specific diversity and the
endemie plant indicators. Since seeds of these grass species were no( available
due to severe over-grazing therefore, plantlcts/propagules of Panicum
antidotale and Lasiurus scindicus were uprooted and transplanted in an
irrigated field at the Cholistan Institute of Desert Studies. The propagules of th
species were multiplied for further studies. During the multiplication of these
grasses morphological characteristics viz. growth rate, growth pattern, canopy
cover, branching/tillcring depicted some visible quantitative differences. Four
esc
ecotypes of Panicum antidotale and four of Lasiurus scindicus showing
were selected for the t experimentscontrasting morphological differences
embodied in this manuscript. This may be mentioned that no entries of Panicum
antidotale were found in the collecting area of Lasiurus scindicus; but Panicum
lurgidum; however Lasiurus scindicus was endemic to all the collccihg sites of
Panicum antidotale (map following page ).
The plant samples of each ecotype were divided into five equal sized (5 g)
plantlets and were propagated at the deserted experimental area of Cholistan
Institute of Desert Studies, lslamia University, Bahawalpur, in a the Randomized
Complete Block Design (RCBD) with three replications. Plant to plant and line to
ao
Tabic 1. • Collecting details of the ecotypes of the grasses used
in investigation.
Panicum antidotale
KH1/6
RD1/1
SH2/8
SH2/1
El (Khokhran Wali Khui)
(Koda Wala Toba)
(Shahccdan Wala Toba)
(Shahccdan Wala Toba)
E2
e3
E4
Lasiurus scindicus.
DGl/2
BC3/6
MW1/4
IS1/9
(Din Garh l;ori)
(Ilaghdadul Jadeed Campus)
(Mandri Wala Toba)
(Islam Garh i'ort)
El
e2
e3
E4
ris
IT? 1 O
72l_pI ° 7170 73
C
3<2o
30
CHOLISTANDESERT
<S>* <70
%
2°v - -ÿ .‘52. <V___
For! Abbo"j7
»?
Vp-
Bohawalpurÿw 2
7<2> Yoimon'~7 o
22/ 1 \o
J29Oingorh
'Derowor Fort
'lP* X1 ,*c>v :
' VV Sw* 7"*r-T i
i /t*i \f
//
i;.4 \\; V \
* <3\ IJ SrA V3'.KKangorh -7- r%
f&*/ /
t0//
*’NQWO Kot \
*i
\
\ o I<b\ ;
i "l o2e
\ )/
Jo \ ; o’• .4*28 '~W i \
/ \ ••IslomgarhJ.2
y4 > io \jS’
V j-£s•t
A1DNl
h’i/'Z?U>«iM
PAKISTAN 3’-|(K1
I* Ay a ’ )jSf-y
/ ) s.>'« ,
° Pan1cum antldotale •S‘y/b w *frj
f lAÿB O
22V,fo
27)
.Aÿ>*
LaaluruB aclndlcua____
* e > ;W) 6
,---*y \>T
Sh/w /
J /Scale 1:2,000,000 ('ÿ)l' ry i M 0
\160 Km \12080400
AHAIIAN »(*
cHXiiuji wjcfft i-wq
Joo o
|7|o
172|70
ai
line distances maintained were one meter. Only one surface irrigation was
applied at the time of transplanting. When the plants were six months old data on
the morphological and nutritional characteristics given in table 2, were recorded.
Means of surviving plants were calculated and statistical analysis was made.
QUANTITATIVE CHARACTERISTICS.
Morphological characters
1. Days taken to sprouting.
Number of days from the date of transplanting of plantlcts to date of
sprouting of first tiller were recorded and averages were calculated. The first
sprouted tiller was tagged and was considered as the main tiller.
2. Height of the plant (cm).
Height of the plant was recorded in centimeters from its base upto the tip
* of the main tiller including inflorescence.
3. Fresh weight of the plant, (g)
To record this character the plants were weighed immediately after
harvesting on the n ipple beam balance.
22
Tabic 2. Morphological and nutritional characters recorded.
QUANTITATIVE CHARACTERS
Morphological characters. i!
1. Days taken to sprouting.
2. Height of the plant.
3. Fresh weight of the plant.
4. Number of tillers per plant.
5. Number of branches on main tiller.
6. Flag leaf area.
7. Number of leaves on main tiller.
8. Number of nodes on main tiller.
9. Number of vegetative branches on main tiller.
10. Number of reproductive branches on main tiller.
11. Length of the inflorescence.
12. Number of branches of the panicle.
1 3- fop internode length of the main tiller.
14. Thickness of the main tiller at 4th node.
1 5 Internodal coverage by leaf sheath.
16. 100 - Seed weight.
17. Ratio between vegetative and reproductive branches.
18. Crown spread of the plant.
19. Survival percentage of the plant.
20. Leaf hairiness.
Nutritional Characteristics.
1. Moisture content (%)
2. Ash content (%)
3. Crude protein (%)
4. Crude fibre (%)
QUALITATIVE CHARACTERS
1. Chlorophyll shades of leaves and stem.
2. Inflorescence colour.
3. Carpel colour.
4. Stamen colour.
5. Habit of the plant.
\
t;!Ail
23
4. Number of tillers per plant.
Total number of tillers were counted physically after harvesting the plants.
5. Number of branches on main tiller.
Total number of branches present on the main tiller were counted at the
time of maturity. ' 1
96. Flag leaf area (cm) .
Flag leaf area of the main tiller was calculated by using the formula
suggested by Carleton and Foote (1965):
Leaf area = Maximum length x Maximum breadth x 0.75
where 0.75 is the correction factor.
7. Number of leaves on main tiller.
Total number of leaves present on the main tiller were counted at the time
of maturity and average of six plants were calculated for statistical analysis.
8. Number of nodes on main tiller.
Total number of nodes present on main tiller were physically counted at
the time of maturity.
24
9. Number of vegetative branches on main tiller.
Number of vegetative branches on main tiller were physically counted.
10. Number of reproductive branches on main tiller.
The number of branches of an inflorescence were recorded as
reproductive branches.
11. Length of the inflorescence (cm).
Length of the inflorescence was measured.
12. Number of branches per panicle.
This character was recorded in Panicum anticlotalc and number of
branches emerging from the panicle of main tiller were counted.
13. Top internode length of the main tiller (cm).
Top intcrnodel length of the main tiller was recorded in cm.
14. Thickness of the main tiller at 4th node (mm).
'fhickncss of the main tiller at the 4th node was recorded with the help of
vernier calliper. •
!1
25
15. 100 - Seed weight (g).
To record this character 100 seeds collected from each ecotype
weighed on an electric balance.
were
16 Internodal coverage by leaf sheath (cmr).
Part of the internode covered by the leaf sheath was recorded on the top
internodc of the main tiller.
17 Ratio between vegetative and reproductive branches:
\
To work out this ratio vegetative branches of main tiller were divided by
the reproductive branches and averages were calcutcd.- ,
18 Leaf hairiness.
Number of hairs present per sq. cm of the flag-leaf were recorded for leaf
hairiness.
219 Crown cover of the plant (cm ).
To record this character the crown spread of the plant was measured and
area covered was calculated in sq. cm. by the following lormulla.
1)1 + 1)2
X XCrown cover =4
26
t
20 Survival percentage of the plant.
To calculate the survival percentage of the plant, total number of survived
plants were counted and calculated by the following formula.
total number of plants survivedSurvival (%) = X 100
total number of plants grown
NUTRITIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
At the time of harvest plant samples of both the grasses species were
collected and the following characteristics were recorded by following the
standard methods of analysis of official analytical chemists (1980).
1) Moisture contents (%).
To determine the moisture content thoroughly cleaned empty crucible with
lid, dried in an oven and weighed. One gram of accurately weighed plant sample
was taken in this crucible and placed in an oven at 105°C for 5 to 6 hours. Then
the crucible was cooled and weighed. The crucible was again heated, cooled and
weighed till constant reading was recorded. The loss in weight was the moisture.
The percentage was calculated as:
wt. of sample lost after heating
wt. of sample before heatingX 100Moisture (%) =
J
I
27
2) Ash contents (%).
The oven dried plant sample (1 gram) was taken in an already weighed
crucible. The crucible was placed in a furnace for ignition at 600°C for
hour, cooled and weighed to calculate the percentage of ash contents.
one
wt. of AshAsh contents (%) = X 100
wt. of sample
3) Crude protein (%).
One gram of the dried plant sample was taken in digestion flask. One
gram of digestion mixture was added to the flask and 25 ml of cone. H2S04 was
poured into the flask very carefully so as to wash down the solid particles of the
plant sample adhering to the neck of the flask. The flask was shaked very wclj,„
until the contents were completely mixed. The flask then was hanged on a tripod
stand inclining the neck at an angle of about 60° in the fume cup-board. The flask
was heated gently and when the fuming eased, the heat was increased till the
mixture started boiling. The mixture was heated until a clear solution was
obtained. The solution was cooled down and volume upto 100 ml was prepared.
Five ml of this prepared solution was poured in kjcldahl apparatus through the
funnel and steam distillation was started by placing the flame under the Kjeldahl’s
apparatus. 40 % NaOll was added drop-wise till the colour of the solution
changed to dark-brown. NH3 evolved from solution was trapped and collected in
the Boric Acid indicator flask which turned to dark blue colour. The flask was
removed and titrated the contents against N/70 HC1.
28
Total N was calculated by the following method.
5ml of N/70 HCI = i mg of N
Total protein = Nitrogen content X 6.25
4. Crude fibre (%).
Two gram of moisture free and ether extracted plant sample was taken in
500 ml digestion flask. 200 ml of 1.25 percent H2S04 was also added.The sample
was digested for 30 minutes on crude fibre extraction apparatus. The sample was
filtered through buckncr funnel with the help of suction pump. After Alteration
the residue was washed with hot water and 15 ml ethanol. The sample was dried
in an oven at 135°C for 2 hours. Cooled, weighed and then ignited in a furnace at
600°C for 30 minutes and weighed again. The crude fibre contents were
calculated by using the following formula.
wt. of residue after acid/alkalitreatment - wt. after ignition
total weight of samplex tooCrude fibre (%) =
STATISTICAL ANALYSES
’I'he data recorded from various quantitative characteristics were analysed
statistically by using Analysis of Variance Technique based on Completely
Randomized block Design (CRBD) according to the Steel and Torric (1980).
Various ecotype means were compared by applying Duncan’s New Multiple Range
Test (DMR) at 5 percent level of significance.
29
In order to work out the similarities and dissimilarities of above mentioned
characters within the ecotypes of Panicum antidotale and Lasiums scitidicus,
principal component analysis (PCA) was performed (SAS Institute, 1985).
Principal component analysis explains the variance with the combination of
variables and facilitates in interpretation of existing pattern of entities in the data
(Crossa et. a!., 1995). Principal component analysis is widely used by the plant
ecologists in the field studies where correlations among,huge number of variables
within different sites is desired.
30
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
Four distinct ecotypes each of Panicum antidotale and Lasiurus scindicus
collected from different ecozones of Cholistan desert were investigated to
determine the ecotypic (genetic) variability. The range and extent of variation for
different morphological and nutritional characteristics studied is given below.
PANICUM ANTIDOTALE Retz.
A. MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS.
1. Days taken to sprouting:
It is evident from table 3 and fig 1 that highly significant differences were
present among the ecotypes. Overall the days taken to sprouting ranged from
10.28 to 22.93 days. Minimum days taken to sprouting by the plantlcts were 10-28
in E3. The maximum of this character was 22.93 days recorded in Eÿ which was
closely followed by E2 i c 21.67 days. On the basis of this character two groups
emerged.
2. Height of the plant (cm).
Highly significant differences were observed among the eeotype for plant
height. It is clear from the table 4 and fig 2 that the tallest plants measuring 188.44
cm were recorded in Ej. It was followed by E2 i'.c 170.65 cm. while the least plant
height (57.00 cm) was depicted by H3 which was statistically similar to E4 having
64.77 cm plant height; accordingly the entries are clearly divisible into two
groups.
i
31
Table 3 - Days taken to sprouting
Analysis of Variance'ÿ
*Source S.S. df. M.S. F-ratio P
Blocks 17.71 2 8.85 .05 "4.77
52.62292.61 3 97.53 .0001 ***Ecoiype
Error 1.8511.12 6
11321.44Total
non-significantns
highly significant
Ecotype Means:
E4EIEi
17.5010.2821.6722.93b ’ca •a
Note:- Any two means sharing same letters
do not differ significantly (p<0.05).
1
1i
V
33
Tabic 4 - Height of the plant (cin)
*Analysis of Variance
S.S. M.S.Source df. F-ratio P
“325X53 2
39675.22
6587.82
Blocks
Ecotype
Error
1626.76 1.48 .30"*
3 12.045613225.07 .0060 **
6 1097.97
49516.58 11Total t
non-significamns
highly significant**r h
Ecotype Means:
EAEjE2Ei
64.77.00170.65180.44bbaa
Note:- Any two means sharing same letters
do not differ significantly (p<0.05).
33Days
7125 Z77
.720
15
10
•'5
0E3 E4E1 E2
Ecotypes
Fig 1 Days taken to sprouting
Height
200
150
*
100/77171771
0 E4E3E2 iE1
Ecotypes
Fig 2 Height of plant (cm)
>ÿ
34
3. Fresh weight of plant (g).
Fresh weight of the plant presented in table 5 and fig 3 revealed statistically
highly significant differences among the four ecotypes. E2 showed the highest
value of fresh weight producing 2193.61 (g) biomass. Fresh weight recorded iin Ej
was 1529.44 (g). On the other hand the lowest value of this character was
observed in K4 (470.00 g), it showed similarities (statistically) to E3 giving biomass
of 607.11 grams.
4. Number of tillers per plant.
Highly significant differences were qbserved among the ecotypes (table 6
and fig 4) regarding the number of tillers per plant. Ej was at the top having
178.44 number of tillers per plant and its minimum was present in II4 (59.11);
while li2 and E3 produced 156.95 and 86.20 number of tillers , per plant,
respectively.
5. Number of branches on ipain tiller.
Statistically significant variation was recorded in total number of branches
on main tiller among the four ecotypes (table 7 and fig 5). E2 producing 15.65
number of branches was on the top and was followed by having 14.00
branches. The lowest number of branches were recorded in E3. It showed its
similarities (statistically) to H4 in which 9.17 number of branches per plant were
recorded.
26. Flag leaf area (cm) .
With respect to flag leaf area highly significant variations were observed
among ecotypes presented in table 8 and fig 6. Bj was the highest scorer having
17.79 square centimetre of leaf area. Minimum leaf area was recorded in E3(10.49 cm2) which showed similarities statistically, to E2 and E4 producing 13.82
and 11.50 (cm)2 flag leaf area, respectively.
33 1
t
Table 5 - Fresh weight of plant (g)
Analysis of Variance
Source S.S. . df. M.S. F-ratio P
‘ 1886.17
5940630.27
‘262739.19
Blocks
Ecotype
Error
943.08 0.02
1980210.09 45.22
43789.86
2 97 m
3 .0002 ***
6
6205255.64 11Total
non-significantns
*** highly significant
Ecotype Means:
E*EJEIEi
470.00607.112193.611529.44cb ca
Note:- Any two means sharing same letters
do not differ significantly (p<0.05).
k
36
Tabic 6 - Number of tillers per plant
Analysis of Variance
Source S.S. df. M.S. F-ratio P
1256.30
28890.71
Blocks
Ecotype
Error
2 0.87628.15 .46 “
. 3 9630.23 §13.41 .0045 **
4306.04 6 717.67
34453.07 11Total
non-significant
highly significantl
ns
**
Ecotype Means:
E.ElEiE.
59.11 .86.20156.95178.44
b baa
Note:- Any two means sharing same letters
do not differ significantly (p<0.05).
4
37Weight '
2,500 v 7N
2,000
/* *
1,500
\ \
i
1,000
500 »ÿ0
E1 E3E2 E4
Ecotypes
Fig 3 Fresh weight of plant (g)
Tillers
71200
150
100
50
»
0E4E3E1 E2
Ecotypes
Fig 4 Number of tillers per plant
i
!:S\; i
38
Table 7 - Number of branches on main tiller
Analysis of Variance
*
F-ratio PS.S. df. M.S.Source
6.49 1.17 .37”Blocks
Ecoiype
Error
12.98 2
126.01
33.23
3 42.00 7.58 .01 *
6 5.53 1
172.22 'Total 11
non-significantns
significant*
Ecotype Means:
EUEJEIE>
9.177.8615.6514.00
bbaa
Note:- Any two means sharing same lettersdo not differ significantly (p<0.05).
39
Table 8 - Flag leaf area (cm)2
Analysis of Variance
Source S.S. df. M.S.
2/70 • 6775 Jf”31.55
F-ratio P
Blocks
Ecotype
Error
5.41 2
94.65 3 8.77 .01 *
• 21.57 6 3.59
121.64Total 11
non-significantns
* significant
Ecotype Means:
E4E> .
10.49
EiEi
11.5013.8217.79
bbba
Note:- Any two means sharing same letters
do not differ significantly (p<0.05).
\
40Branchos
18
Z16
14
12
10
6
6
4
n2
0E1 E2 E3 E4
Ecotypes
Fig 5 Number of brunches per plunt.
Leaf area
20
16
t
10
5
H0
E4E3E2E1
Ecotypes
Fig 6 Flag leaf area (cm)
, fi
\
41
7. Number of leaves on main tiller.
As indicated by table 9 and fig 7 number of leaves on main tiller varied
significantly among the four ecotypes, lij having 157.44 number of leaves per
tiller was at maximum, followed by 1*2 (150.94). E4 producing 56.16 leaves was at
minimum level showing close and non-significant similarities with E3 (72.53).
8. Number of nodes on main tiller.
It is clear from table 10 and fig 8 that ecotypes presented statistically highly
significant variations with respect to number of nodes on main tiller. E] produced
maximum number of nodes on main tiller (8.72) and its minimum was in E4(5.97). On the other hand E3 produced 7.30 nodes which showed close
similarities with E2> *n which 7.25 number of nodes on main tiller were observed.
9. Number of vegetative branches on main tiller.
It is evident from table 11 and fig 9 that statistically there was not much
variation present among four ecotypes with respect to number of vegetative
branches on main tiller. However maximum number of vegetative branches were
recorded in E2 (10.16), followed by Eÿ (7.91), E3 (5.39) and E4 (5 21).
I
10. Numbef of reproductive branches on main tiller.
Highly significant differences among the ecotypes were observed (table 12
and fig 10) with regard to number of reproductive branches on main tiller. Eÿ
at the top producing 5.66 number of reproductive branches while 114
minimum level (2.65). E2 and E4 produced 5.00 and 3-74 reproductive branches
on main tiller, respectively.
was
was at its
' '
43
Tabic 9 - Number of leaves on main tiller
Analysis of Variance
Source S.S. df. M.S. F-ration P
‘ 2 J 80.67
24680.65
J 580.30
Blocks
Ecotype
Error
2 1090.33 4.13
8226.88 31.23
263.38
.07 M
3 .0005 *+*
6
28441.63Total II
non-significantnsl
*** . highly significant
Ecotype Means:
E4EJEIEi
56.16'72.53150.94157.44
bbaa
Note:- Any two means sharing same letters
do not differ significantly (p<0.05)., H
*
A
43
TablelO- Number of nodes on main tiller
Analysis of Variance
Source S.S. df. F-ratio
123 2 0761 3769 Tf-.0018 **
M.S. P
blocks
Ecotype
Error
11.33 3 3.77 18.96 l
6 0.191.19
Total 13.76
non-significantns
highly significant
Ecotype Means:
EMEJEIE.
5.977.307.258.72
b cba
Note:- Any two means sharing same letters
do not differ significantly (p<0.05).
r
44Leaves
V
180
160
140
' 120
100
Z k
\80
60
40
z20
0E1 E3 E4E2 \
Ecolypes
Fig 7 Number of leaves on main tiller
Nodes
10
8
6
4
2
1Z0
E4E3E2E1
Ecotypes
Fig 8 Number of nodes on main tiller
y
43
Tabic 11 - Number of vegetative branches on main tiller
Analysis of Variance
Source S.S. dr. M.S. F-ratio P
(locks
•cotype
irror
• 24.22 2 12.11 1.63 .27 “49.50 16.503 2.22 .18 M
44.44 6 7.40
Total 118.17
non-significantns
Ecotype Means:
E4EJEIEi
5.215.3910.167.91aaaa
Note:- Any two means sharing same letters
do not differ significantly (p<0.05). I
• . "3!\ 1
t
46
Table 12 - Number of reproductive branches on main tiller
Analysis of Variance
Source S.S. F-ratiodf. M.S. P
0.44 2 0.22 0.43 .66 "*Blocks
Ecotype
Error
16.04 5.34 10.30 .0088 **3
3.11 6 0.51
19.60Total
non-significantns
highly significant
Ecotype Means:
EJ E4EI E:
3.745.00 2.655.66
beab ca
Note:- Any two means sharing same lettersdo not differ significantly (p<0.05).
t
:
47Vegetative branches
12
10
8
6
A
2i
0E1 E3 EAE2
Ecotypes
Fig 0 Number of vegetative hritnchct> on tnnin tiller
Reproductive branches
i
\
6
5
/A \
m3
2
1 H //m/
0EAE3E2E1
Ecotypes
Fig 10 number of reproductive branches on main tiller
F’:"' !.U$S
I
48
11. Length of the inflorescence (cm).
Analysis of variance pertaining to length of the inflorescence, presented in
tabic 13 and fig 11 exhibited non significant differences among the ecotypes.
However, values observed with respect to the length of inflorescence were 21.47
cm in E4, 19.46 cm in 1*2. 18.15 cm in I13 and the least in E4 i.e. 17.93 cm.
12. Number of branches per panicle.
Table 14 and fig 12 having analysis of variance depicted highly significant
differences among the four ecotypes with respect to number of branches ftcrpanicle. J12 being the top scorer produced 19.8 branches per panicle, followed by
Kj in which 18.20 branches were produced. While the lowest (13.84) branches
per panicle were observed in H3 which showed statistically non-significant
relations to E4 (14.81).
13- Top internode length of main tiller (cm).
It is evident from table 15 and fig 13 that highly significant differences
present among the four ecotypes with regard to top internode length of main
tiller. Maximum top intcrnodal length (19.46 cm) was observed in U2 and
minimum (12.22 cm) in E]. While ecotype E4 and II3 showed 15.73 cm and 12.81
cm top internode length of the main tiller.
were
14. Thickness of the main tiller at 4th node (mm).
It is clear from the table 16 and fig 14 that statistically significant variations
observed among the ecotypes regarding the thickness of the main tiller atwere
4th. node. The thickest 4th. node (3.87 mm) was recorded in Iij. It showed
statistically non-significant relation with Iv2 and producing 3.46 mm and 3.33
thickness at the 4th. node of main tiller. While minimum thickness at the 4th.mm
node was observed in E3 (2.47 mm).
49
Table 13 - Length of inflorescence on main tiller (cm)
Analysis of Variance
i
Source S.S. df. M.S. F-ratio P
Blocks
Ecotype
Error
6.64 2 3.32 .21 "*1.97
23.72 3 7.90 .051 "*4.7!
10.07 6 .67
Total 40.44 11
non-significantns
Ecotype Means:
E4E3EiEi
21.4718.1519.4617.93
bab ab
Note:- Any two means sharing same letters
do not differ significantly (p<0.05).
*
I :i
50
Table 14 - Number of branches per panicle
Analysis of Variance
Pdf. M.S. F-ratioSource
Blocks
Ecotype
Error
S.S.
TT8“"~............2 276923.57 • 19.98
.24 *'
.0016 **
1.77
70.73 3
7.07 1.176
Total 81.99 11
non-significantns
highly significant**
Ecotype Means:
E4EJE>Ei
14.8113.8419.8018.20
bbaa
Note:- Any two means sharing same lettersdo not differ significantly (p<0.05).
t
51Length
25
7120 SSJ
15
10
5
0E1 E2 E3 E4
Ecotypes
Fig 11 Length of inflorescence (cm)
Branches
i
25
20
/”7\\
15
i
...I..10
5
It
0E4E3E2E1
\
% Ecotypes
Fig 12 Number of branches per panicle
L
52
Tabic 15 - Top internode length of main tiller (cm)
Analysis of Variance
Source S.S. df. F-ratio..........0.14 .....OilS .....~83 “
32.94
M.S. P
Blocks
Ecotype
Error
0.28 2
98.84 3 43.71 .0002 ***
4.52 6 0.75
Total 103.64 11
non-significantns
*** highly significant
Ecotype Means:
E*ElEIEl
12.81 15.7312.22 19.46
bcac
Note:- Any two means sharing same letters
do not differ significantly (p<0.05).
:t
53
Table 16 - Thickness of the main tiller at 4th node (cm)
Analysis of Variance
Source S.S. . df. M.S. F-ratio P
Blocks
Ecotype
Error
0.11 2 0.05 0.34 72 »,
3.16 3 1.05 6.35 .02 *
0.99 6 0.16
¥
11Total 4.27
non-significantns
significant
*
Ecotype Means:
E4EJE2EI
3.443.46 2.473.87
b aaa
Note:- Any two means sharing same letters
do not differ significantly (p<0.05).
ES55‘i
34Length
25
47120
ZZ7Iz15
10
5
iz0
E1 E2 E4E3
Ecotypes
Fig 13 Top internode length of main tiller (cm)
Thickness
>1
5
4
, M
3v.
2
s>
IMS1
1\/M0
E4E3E2E1
Ecotypes
Fig 14 Thickness of the main tiller at 4th node (cm)
as
15. Internodal coverage by leaf sheath (cm).
Analysis of Variance pertaining to part of internode covered by leaf sheath,
presented in table 17 and fig 15 showed no statistical differences among the
ecotypes. The variation ranged 9.41 cm in Ej to 8.10 cm in E4. Part of internode
covered by leaf sheath in £3 and E3 was 8.67 cm and 8.31 cm, respectively.
16. 100 - seed weight (g).
Statistically significant variation was recorded among the . ecotypes in
respect to the 100 - seed weight (tabic 18 and fig 16). Maximum 100 - seed weight
was observed in E4 (0.08 g) and minimum in Ej (0.06 g). On the other hand E3and E2 produced 0.07 g and 0.06 g 100 - seed weight, respectively. Among E3, E2and E], there was no-statistically significant difference was present.
17. Ratio between vegetative and reproductive branches.
Ratio between vegetative and reproductive branches presented in table 19
and fig 17 showed non-significant differences among the ecotypes. Highest value
of this character was recorded in E2 (2.11) and the lowest in Ej (1.36), followed
by E3 (1.68) and E4 (1.48).i
18. Crown spread of the plant (cm2ÿ
With regard to the crown spread highly significant differences were present
among the ecotypes (table 20 and fig 18). Ei showed the best crown spread
(241.21 cm2) and I13 produced the least crown
E2 (147.63 cm2) and E4 (88.61 cm2). Statistically there was no difference was
observed among E2, E4 and E3.
spread (71.66 cm2) followed by
i. • 3EH
56
Table 17 - Intcrnodal coverage by leaf sheath (cm)
Analysis of Variance*
M.S.Source F-ratio PS.S. df.
.18“
.67 "
Blocks
Ecotype
Error
8;52 2 4.26 2.30
2.96 3 0.98 0.53
6. 11.08 1.84
Total 22.58 11 *
non-significantns
Ecotype Means:
E4EJEIE.
8.31 8.108.679.41
aaaa
Note:- Any two means sharing same letters
do not differ significantly (p<0.05).
57
Table 18 * 100-seed weight (g)
Analysis of Variance
Source S.S. M.S.df. F-ratio P
"o.ooBlocks
Ecotype
Error
2 0.00 0.00 1.00 n‘
*7.58 3 2.52 5.68 .03 *
2.66 6 4.44
Total 1.02 II
non-significaiuns =
significant
Ecotype Means:
E«EiEiEi
0.080.070.060.06
ab aabb
Note:- Any two means sharing same letters
do not differ significantly (p<0.05).
tin
58Internodal coverage
10
X /
8
6
4
2
0E2E1 E3 E4
Ecotypes
Fig 15 Inlernodal coverage by leaf shcailh (cm) i.
Weight
0.1
/Z7|k
I0.08 t
0.06
v
0.04 H
K.0.02
E4E3E1 E2
Ecotypes
Fig 16 100 - seed weight (g)
39
Tabic 19 - Ratio between vegetative and rcprroductive branches
Analysis of Variance
Source S.S. df. M.S. F-ratio • P
032 — 0.28Blocks
Ecotype
Error
0.16 .76“
.65 “0.96 3 0.32 0.57 :
3.37 6 0.56
Total 4.65 11 .
i
non-significantns
Ecotype Means:
Ei E4E:Ei
1.481.681.36 2.11
aaaa
Note:- Any two means sharing same letters
do not differ significantly (p<0.05).
r" .rg
60
Tabic 20 - Crown spread of the plant (cm)2
Analysis of Variance
Source S.S. IM.S.df. F-ratio P
Blocks 516.17
52751.49
2 258.08
17583.83
0.17 .84"
.0063 *T.11.81Ecotype
Error
3
8932.79 6 1488.79 .
Total 62200.46 11
non-significantns
*.highly significant**
Ecotype Means:
E4EJEI Ei
88.6171.66147.63241.21
bbba
Note:* Any two means sharing same lettersdo not differ significantly (p<0.05).
61Ratio
i
\
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0E1 E2 E4E3
Ecotypes
Fig 17 Itatio between vegetative anti reproductive brandies
Crown spread
300
250
200
150
77Z100
50 l
0E4E3E2E1
Ecotypes
Fig 10 Crown spread of the plant (cm)
P'.
i
t
63
19- Percentage of plant survival.
No statistical variation was observed among the ecotypes with respect to
this character (table 21 and figure 19). The percentage of plant survival ranged
94.44 % in Ej to 83.33 % in 1-3.
20. Chlorophyll shades of leaves and stem.
It is clear from table 22 that ccotypic variation in the chlorophyll shades of
leaves and stem was very distinct. In li] and H3 chlorophyll leaf shades were very
light depicting light green colour. While H2 and H4 showed deep chlorophyll
shades producing deep green colour. So far as the stem is concerned Ej, E2 and
E3 showed green coloured stem and E4 had brownish-green stem.
21. Inflorescence colour.
In El, green coloured inflorescence was found while in all the other
ecotypes i.c E2, E3 and E4 greenish-violet coloured inflorescence was observed.
22. Stamen and carpel colour.
Stamen colour in all the ecotypes was different. In lij, E2 and E3 greenish
violet coloured stamens were observed. In E4 the colour of stamen was violet,
different from other ecotypes. In case of carpel colour there were no clear cut
differences among the ecotypes. All the ecotypes produced yellow green coloured
carpel.
63
Tabic 21 - Percentage of plants survival
Analysis of Variance
Source
(locks---------------------1§9UT~......."72 995758....................T44 .06”
185.14
1342.82
S.S. df. M.S. F-ratio P
xotype
irror
3 61.71 0.27 .84 "
6 223.80
3519.14otal 11
non-significantns
Ecotype Means: .
E<EiEi
88.8883.3388.8894.44
aaa
Note:- Any two means sharing same letters
do not differ significantly (p<0.05).
I f
64
Plant survival
100
20
0E3 E4E2El
Ecotyp«3
Fig 19 Porcontago of plant survival
65
t
t
Tabic 22 Qualitative characteristics recorded in various ecotypes of
Panicum antidotale, collected from Cholistan desert.
S. No. Character
Chiorophyii shades
of leaves
Chloropuyll shades
of stem
Inflorescence colour
El E2 E3 E4
1. Light green Deep green Light green Deep green
2. Green
violet
Green Green Green
violet
Green
violet
3. Green Green Green
violet
Green
violetviolet
VioletStamen colour Green Green
violet
4.
violetviolet
YellowYellowYellowCarpet colour Yellou5.
green
Erect
green
Erect
green
Erect
green
ProstrateHabit of the plant6.
* l
, '
r7
66
23- Habit of the plant.
Jt has generally been observed that hab’it of the plant growth varied among
ecotypes. In E] all the plants were prostrate in nature while in E2, E3 and E4showed erect plant growth.
NUTRITIONAL CHARACTERISTICS.
1. Moisture contents:
Moisture contents of Panicum antidolate, given in table 23 showed
considerable variations among the ecotypes, E] produced 82.50 % moisture
contents and was at the top. Minimum moisture contents were recorded in E2(64.00 %), while in case of E2 and Eÿ, the moisture contents were 69.00 % and
76.75 %, respectively.
2. Ash Contents:
Ash contents, presented in table 23 showed vivid differences among the
ecotypes. Minimum contents were recorded in Ej (2.50 %) maximum in E2 (4.70
%), followed by E3 and E4 having 4.60 % and 4.30 % ash contents, respectively.
3* Crude protein content:
Vivid ecotypic differences were visible for this character. Ej being at the top
produced 3.73 % protein content while E2 showed 2.37 % protein and was at
minimum level. E4 and E3 produced 3.30 % and 3.45 % crude protein contents.
4. Crude fibre:
Crude fibre presented in table 23 indicated not vivid ecotypic differences.
Maximum crude fibre was recorded in E3 (0.22 %) whicb was followed by E4, £2and Ei containing 0.20 %, 0.19 % and 0.18 % fibre contents, respectively.
67
Table 23 Nutritional characteristics recorded in various ecotypes of
Panicum antidotale, collected from Cholistan desert (%)
Character ----------8236..............."64:66 •......69.66Ash content
Crude protein
Crude fibre
>. No. El E2 E3 E4
76.75
2.50 4.70 4.60 4.30
3.302.37 3.453.75
0.200.220.18 0.19
* 1
1
68
LASIURUS SCINDICUS Hcnrard.
MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS.
1. Days taken to sprouting.
Analysis of variance pertaining to days taken to sprouting of propagulcs,
presented in table 24 and fig 20 showed highly significant variation among the
ecotypes. The lowest number of days taken to sprouting were 13.33 in E2,
followed by E] (14.26) while the highest number of days were taken by E4 (22.55)
to sprout, which was closely followed by E3 (14.26). Overall the number of days
taken to sprouting ranged between 13 33 to 22.55.
2. Height of the plant (cm).
Height of the plant elaborated in table 25 and fig 21 depicted highly
significant differences among the four ecotypes. The highest plants were recorded
in E4 (185 cm) and the lowest height was observed in. E2 (91.24 cm). WhilQ E3and li] showed 144.44 cm and 137-77 cm plant height. There was no significant
variation irk E3 and Ej.
3. Fresh weight of the plant (g).
Statistically highly significant differences were recorded among the
ecotypes regarding the fresh weight of the plant (table 26 and ‘fig 22). E4produced maximum fresh weight (3020.0 g). Minimum biomass was recorded in
F.2, where 961.66 g fresh weight of the plant was recorded. In E3 and Ei 2244.44
g and 1946.66 g fresh weight of the plant was observed.
4. Number of tillers per plant.
*
So far as this character is concerned significant ccotypie variation was
recorded (table 27 and fig 23). The highest value of number tillers 397.25 was
69
Table 24 - Days taken to sprouting
Analysis of Variance
Source S.S. df. M.S. F-ratio P
ocks 4.91 2 .52 “2.45 0.70 l
165.69
20.79
3 55.23 15.93 .0029 **:otype
6 3.46rror
otal 191.40
*non-significantns i
highly significant**
icotype Means:
E4EiEiEi
22.5518.9413.3314.26ab ab
Note:- Any two means sharing same letters
do not differ significantly (p<0.05).
70
Table 25 - Height of the plant
Analysis of Variance
Source S.S. M.S. F-ratio Pdf.
84.01 . 2.47
130.56
.16"Blocks
Ecotype
Error
168.02
13278.92
203.40
2
4426.30
33.90
.0000 ***3
6
13650.35 11Total
= - non-significantns
highly significant***
Ecotype Means:
E4E3EzEi
185144.4491.24137.77
b ab c
Note:- Any two means sharing same lettersdo not differ significantly (p<0.05).
7*1iDays
25
20*.
7115
10
5
0E1 E2 E3 E4
Ecotypes
Fig 20 Doyo taken to sprouting
Height (cm)
/~7l200
7I150
.iI||jpm
100
i
0E4E3E2E1
Ecotypes
kFig 21 Height of the plant (cm)
73
Table 26 - Fresh weight of the plant (g)
Analysis of Variance
Source S.S. M.S. F-ratio Pdf.
509691.46
6525896.05
Blocks
Ecotype
Error
2 254845.73 3.60
2175298.68 30.74
70754.21
.09 “3 .0005 ***
424525.29 6
7460112.81Total 11
non-significantns
highly significant***
Ecotype Means:
E4EJ3EiEi
3020.832244.44961.661946.66
b ab c
Note:- Any two means sharing same letters
do not differ significantly (p<0.05).
1
73
Table 27 - Number of tillers per plant
Analysis of Variance
Source S.S. df. M.S. PF-ratio
18157.14
90746.81
20.79
2 9078.57
30248.93
29 ~Blocks
Ecolype
Error
1.49
4.96 .04 *3
6 3.46
Total 145422.33 II
t
non-significantns
highly significant*
Ecotype Means:
E4E3-EJEi i
397.25306.08154.44271.23
abbab a
Note:- Any two means sharing same letters
do not differ significantly (p<0.05).
L-Lii-J
74Weight (g)
3,500i
S33,000
i12,500
712,000
lull1,500
1,000
>
I500 1Ik0
E1 E2 E3 E4
Ecotypes
Fig 22 Fresh weight of the plant (g)
Tillers i
500 1
400
ily
300 NS!
I••200
100
im0
E4E3El E2
Fig 23 Number of tillers per plant
75
observed in 1:4, followed by 1£3 (306.08) and (271.23).'Ilie lowest value of this
character was observed in 1*2 (154.44).
5. Nnumber of branches on main tiller.
All the four ecotypes showed highly significant differences (tabic 28 and fig
24) regarding the total number of branches on main tiller. The number of
branches were at the top in 1:2 (15.83) and the bottom in lij (5.58). Ecotypes 1:3and 1:4 produced 13-41 and 5.66 number of branches on main tiller.
26. Flag leaf area (cm) .
Analysis of variance for this character presented in table 29 and fig 25
depicted highly significant variation among the ecotypes. Ecotypic comparison
showed that the highest score of flag leaf area was in E4 having an area of 9.44cmÿ. On the othre hand II2 exhibited the lowest leaf area (2.83 cmÿ). Flag leaf
area in E3 and l:j was recorded as 8.36 and 3-34 cmÿ, respectively.
7. Number of leaves on main tiller.
Highly significant ecotypic variation was observed among the ecotypes as
presented in table 30 and fig 26. Comparison among the ecotypes showed that
highest number of leaves on main tiller were present in 1:4 (27.41). Reverse of this
the lowest number of leaves on main tiller (18.23) were recorded in E3. In E2number of leaves produced on main tiller were 21.63, followed by Ej (20.84).
8. Number of nodes on main tiller.
All the ecotypes showed highly significant variations regarding the number
of nodes on main tiller (table 31 and fig 27). Maximum number of nodes were
exhibited by E4 (28.67) and minimum value of this character was observed in E3(19.49). While ecotypes I12 and Ej produced 22.90 and 22.07 number of nodes on
main tiller, respectively.
' n
76
Table 28 - Total number of branches on main tiller
Analysis of Variance
S.S.Source df. M.S. F-ratio , P
1.3?Blocks
Ecotype
Error
2.76 2 1.92 .22 “. 251.86 83.95 116.98 .0000 ***3
0.714.30 6
Total 258.93 11
non-significantns
*** highly significant
Ecotype Means:
E4EJEIE.
5.6613.4115.835.58
b cac
Note:- Any two means sharing same lettersdo not differ significantly (p<0.05).
*77
Table 29 - Flag leaf area (cm)2
Analysis of Variance
Source S.S. df. M.S. F-ratio P
Blocks
Ecotype
Error
0.34 2 0.17 . 0.37 .69 M
103.65 3 34.55 75.26 .0000 ***
2.75 6 0.45
106.75Total 11
non-significantns
highly significant
Ecotype Means:
E4EiEJEI
9.448.362.833.34
bb aai
Note:- Any two means sharing same lettersdo not differ significantly (p<0.05).
*
78Branches
18 /m1671
si14
12
10
8 /I6
4
* Vs2
0E1 E2 E3 E4
Ecotypes
Fig 24 Number of branches on main tiller
Leaf area
» >
7I10
71
8
61
ZZ714 71
2 MM l// . >
0 V
E4E3E2E1
Ecotypes
Fig 25 Flag leaf area (cm)
79
Table 30 - Number of leaves on main tiller
Analysis of Variance
Source S.S. df. M.S. F-ratio
"0.80“"P
1.67Blocks
Ecotype
Error
3.34 2 .48 “
135.05 3 45.01 21.76 .0013 **
2.06612.41
Total 150.81
non-significantns
highly significant=*
Ecotype Means:
E.EJEIEi
27.4118.2321.6320.84
b abe c
Note:- Any two means sha ring same letters
do not differ significantly (p<0.05).
80
Table 31 - Number of nodes on main tiller
Analysis of Variance
Source S.S. df. M.S. F-ratio P
Blocks 2.92 2 1.46 1.08 .39 ”
33.40Ecotype
Error
134.88 3 44.96 .0004 ***
68.Q7 1.34
Total 145.88 II
non-significantns
highly significant***
Ecotype Means:
EJ E4E. Ei!•
28.6719.4922.9022.07
bb ac
Note:- Any two means sha ring same letters
do not differ significantly (p<0.05).
81Leaves
i
30
25SS]
20 *
15
10
15
0E1 E2 E3 E4
Ecotypes
Fig 26 Number of leaves on main tiller
Nodes
30
25
20
15
10
t i
5
0E4E3E2E1
Ecotypes
Fig 27 Number of nodes on main tiller
>
83
9- Length of inflorescence (cm).
Analysis of variance presented in table 32 and fig 28 depicted highly
significant differences among the ecotypes in respect to length of inflorescence.The tallest inflorescence having 11.98 cm length was observed in II4 (11.98 cm).*.On the other hand the smallest inflorescence was recorded in 1*2 8.46 cm. E3produced 10.70 cm long inflorescence, followed by I- j (9.75 cm).
10. Top internode length of main tiller.
So far as top internode length of the main tiller is coneerned, highly
significant variation among all the ecotypes was noted (table 33 and 29). With the
comparison of ecotype means it was observed that maximum top internode length
was present in E4 (25.40 cm) and minimum in E3 (13 78 cm). Ej and E2 exhibited
22.90 cm and 19.70 cm top intcrnodal length showing non-significant difference
between each other.
11. Thickness of the main tiller at the 4th node.
With regard to this character highly significant differences among the
ecotypes were observed, (table 34 and lig 30). The thickest 4th node of the main
tiller was noted in E4 (0.57 cm), followed by E3 where 0.46 cm thickness was
recorded. On the othre hand minimum of thickness of 4th node was found in E2(0.28 cm), followed by the lij (0.36 cm), depicting non-significant difference
between each pthcr.
12. Internodal coverage by leaf sheath (cm).
lnternodal coverage by leaf sheath given in table 35 and fig 31 exhibited
highly significant variations among the ecotypes. Maximum part of the internode
covered by leaf sheath in II4 (914 cm), followed by E3 covering 7.79
internode and showing non-significant difference with E4. Minimum part of the
cmwas
83
Table 32 - Length of inflorescence (cm)
Analysis of Variance
Source S.S. df. M.S. F-ratio P
Blocks 0.46 2 0.23 0.76 .50 ,u
Ecotype
Error
19.91 3 6.63 21.66 .0013 **
1.83 6 0.30
Total 22.21 11
non-significamits
highly significant***
Ecotype Means: * i
E4EI EJEJ
10.70 11.988.469.75
b,b ac
t
Note:- Any two means sha ring same lettersdo not differ significantly (p<0.05).
r. ..iu;:-
84
Tabic 33 - Top internode length of main tiller
Analysis of Variance
PSource
"Blocks..........4.48.
2"Ecotype
Error
S.S. df. M.S. F-ratio
'”'2.24.......................6783 AT”28.23 .0006 ***•226.60 3 75.53
6 2.6716.05
Total 247.13 11
non-significantns
highly significant •4 4*4
Ecotype Means:
EAEJEiEi
25.4013.7819.722.9 .b aab i c
Note:- Any two means sha ring same letters
do not differ significantly (p<0.05).
83Length
s
14
12
10 78
6
4
2
0El E2 E3 E4
Ecotypes
Fig 28 Length of inflorescence (cm)
Length (cm)
30ZZ7I
25
20
0E4E3E2E1
Ecotypes
Fig 29 Top internode length of main tiller (cm)
• r-"*g
i •
86
*
Table 34 - Thickness of the main tiller at 4th node
Analysis of Variance
S.S.Source df. M.S. F-ration P
Blocks
Ecotype
Error
2.45 2 0.761.22 .50
0.14 0.04 29.563 » .0005 ***
9.61 6 1.60
Total 0.15 11
non-significantns.
highly significant***
Ecotype Means:
EAEI EjEI
0.570.460.36 0.28
b acc
Note:- Any two means sha ring same lettersdo not differ significantly (p <0.05).
I
87
Table 35 - Intcrnodal coverage by leaf sheath (cm)
Analysis of Variance
Source S.S. M.S. F-ratio Pdf.
Blocks
Ecotype
Error
0.10 2 0.05 0.06 .93 "*
.0024 **38.64 3 12.88 17.23
4.48 0.746
Total 43.23 11
non-significantns
highly significant
Ecotype Means:
E-iEJE.
9.147.794.855.18
bb aa
»
Note:- Any two means sha ring same lettersdo not differ significantly (p<0.05).
88Thickness
0.6
10.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0E1 E2 E3 E4
Ecotypes
Fig 30 Thickness of the main tiller at 4th node (cm)
Internodal coverage
10*
ZZ7I8
1X/16
4 i
2
E4E3E2E1
Ecotypes
Fig 31 Internodal coverage by leaf aheath (cm)
89
internode was covered by leaf sheath in 1*2 (4.85 cm) which was followed non-
singnifieantly by l:j (5.18 cm).
13. Leaf hairiness.
Statistical analysis of this character, presented in table 36 and fig 32depicted highly significant differences among the ecotypes. Number of hairs were
higher in H3 (16.77) and were lesser in 84 (3.75). Number of hairs observed in Ijj
and 1:2 were 7.96 and 4.65, respectively. ,
14. Crown spread of the plant.
The analysis of variance regarding this character given in table 37 and fig
33showed highly significant differences among the ecotypes. It became clear with
the comparison of the ecotypes that the highest value of plant spred was in F.4(222.08 cmÿ) and the lowest value
172.22 cmÿ followed non-signifieantly by 1*2 (115.10 cmÿ).in I: j (84.90 cmÿ). Plant spred in 83was was
15. Percentage of plant survival.
Statistical analysis of this character shown in table 38 and fig 34 depicted
non-significant differences among the ecotypes. Percentage of plant survival
ranged from 77.77 (lij) to 44.44 (U3). The percentage of plant survival in 1:2 and
1:4 was recorded as 72.22 and 66.66, respectively.
16. Chlorophyll shades of leaves and stem.
No ecotypic variation was observed in chlorophyll shades of leaves and
(table 39). In all the ecotypes green colour with equal shade was recorded.
Hut there was variation in node colour. In li] the node colour was violet-green,
while in 1:2 and H4 the nodal colour was green.
stem
90
Table 36 - Leaf hairiness.
Analysis of Variance
Source S.S. df. M.S. F-ratio P
1.49 0.59 .58 “2.99Blocks
Ecotype
Error
2
.0002 ***•41.72317.64 3 105.88
15.22 6 2.53
*335:87 11Total
non-significant .ns
highly significant***
t
i
Ecotype Means:
E4,E3 'EiE.
3.7516.774.657.96
b cac
Note:- Any two means sha ring same lettersdo not differ significantly (p<0.05).
91
Table 37 - Crown spread of the plant (cm2)
Analysis of Variance
Source S.S. M.S.df. F-ratio P
Blocks
Ecotype
Error
7992.64 2 3996.32 4.72 .05 “
33411.58 3 11137.19
845.20
13.17 .0048 **
5071.20 6
46475.43 11Total
non-significantns
highly significant**
Ecotype Means:
E4EiEiEi
222.08172.22115.1084.9
abbe ac
Note:- Any two means sha ring same letters
do not differ significantly (p<0.05).
l
92Hairiness
20
15
h10
*
5
Z/o
E3 E4E1 E2
Ecotypes
Fig 32 Leal haiiiness
t Spread
Z~7]250
il200
150
z100
50i
z0 I
E4E3E2E1
Ecotypes
Fig 33 Crown spread of the plant (cm)
93
Tabic 38 - Percentage of plant survival
Analysis of Variance
S.S. df. M.S. F-ratio.....L07"PSource
439:87879.75 2 .39™Blocks
Ecotype
Error
640.46
408.94
1.56 .29™1921.39
2453.68
3
6
5254.84Total 11
non-significantns
Ecotype Means:
E4EJEIEi
66.6644.4472.2277.77 i
aaaa
Note:- Any two means shading same letters
do not differ significantly (p<0.05).
*1
94
Survival
100
BO ZI7I
60
7
40 >
20
0E4E2 E3E1
Ecotypoai
Fig 34 Percentage of pltant survival
95
l
Table 39 Qualitative characteristics recorded in various ecotypes of
Lasiurus scindicus, collected from Cholistan desert.
iJS. No. Character El E2 E4
1. Chlorophyll shades Green
of leaves
Chloropuyll shades Green
of stem
Inflorescence colour Violet
Green Green Green
2. Green Green Green
3. Green Green Green
green
Violet Yellow YellowYellow4. Stamen colour
green
Green
green
Green
green
GreenGreenCarpet colour
Habit of the plant
5.
ErectErectProstrate Erect6.
ESI1 '
96
15. Colour of carpel and stamen.
So far the colour of carpel is concerned in all the ecotypes green coloured
carpel was recorded (table 39). While in case of stamen colour there was a great
variation in iij and in all other ecotypes. In b] the colour of stamen was violet and
in li2» 1*3 and 1*4 the colour was yellow green.
16. Inflorescence colour.
*In general appearance the colour of inflorescence showed variation among
the ecotypes (table 39). In lij the inflorescence colour was violet green. While in
ease of li2, H3 and H4 the colour was green. ,
17. Habit of the plant.
During the growth period plant habit was observed (table 39). 'ITie plants
in H] were prostrate in nature while in 1ÿ2 were semi prostrate. So far as H3 and
H4 was concerned the plant habit was erectly, bushes with very good growth.IT
NUTRITIONAL CHARACTERISTICS.
1. Moisture contents.
The moisture contents presented in table 40 showed hat maximum
moisture (75.70 %) was recorded in H3 and minimum in lij and K4 havinf 65.30 %
moisture in eaeh. On the other hand H2 produced 69.90 % moisture contents
2. Asli contents.
In ease of the ash contents in Lasiurus scinclicus, presented in table 40 the
lowest contents were recorded in H3 (9-33%) and the highest ash content 12.20%
97
4ÿ
Table 40 Nutritional characteristics recorded in various ecotypes of
Lasiurus scindicus, collected From Cholistan desert (%)
S. No. Character El E2 E3 E4
Moisture content
Ash content
Crude protein
Crude fibre
1. 65.30 69.90 65.3075.70
2. 11.33 10.90 9.33 12.20
3. 10.63 8.50 9.56 10.63
32.3528.64 37.4035.234.
K
1
1
98
were observed in H4. lij and H2 produced 11.35 % and 10.90% ash contents in
plant.
3. Crude protein.
So far as this character is concerned the ecotypes differences were high as
10.63% crude protein was recorded in l:j which was on the top, followed by E4 in
which the crude protein contents were 10.63% (table 38). The lowest of this
character was recorded in E2 (8.50 %) immediately followed by E3 in while
protein contents was 9.56%.
4. Crude fibre.
Crude fibre present in plants of various ecotypes, incorporated the table 40
showed that I£1 was at the top having maximum crude fibre (35.23%), followed by
E4 and Ej producing 32.35% and 31-40% crude fibre, respectively. The least
crude fibre in the plant was recorded in E2, which was 28.64%.
99
PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS
Panicum anlidolale Retz.
Principal component analysis collapsed the 19 morphological trails of
Panicum antidotale into four Principal components and explained 85.30% of the
total genetic variation among 4 ecotypes. I'hc four principal components
accounted for 50.70, 15.30, 11.0 and 8.30% of genetic variation respectively.
(Table 41). The relationship of first four principal components with the
quantitative variables are given in table 42.
The.variables prominent in first principal component (PCI) are: number of
leaves on main tiller, number of branches per panicle, fresh weight of the plant,
height of the plant, number of reproductive branches on main tiller, number of
tillers per plant, number of branches on main tiller, Hag leaf area, crown spread
of the plant, days taken to sprouting and 100-seed weight. In second principal
component (PC2) ratio between vegetative and reproductive branches, number of
vegetative branches on main tiller, top internode length of the main tiller, number
of branches on main tiller and length of the inflorescence were significant •
variables; while the prominent variables of third prineipal component (PC3) are:
length of the inflorescence, number of nodes on main tiller, top internode length
of the main tiller, thickness of the main tiller at the 4th node, days taken to
sprouting and percentage of plant survival. 'The significant variables in fourth
prineipal component (PC4) are: internodal coverage by leaf sheath, length of the
inflorescence, 100-seed weight and fresh weight of the plant.
*,
The plots of ecotypes drawn against 1*C I vs l’C2 and TCI vs TC3 shown in
fig 35, and 36 indicated a considerable high amount of genetic variations existing
the recorded morphological trails of collected ecotypes of Panicumamong
100
Tabic 41. Latent roots, percentage variance and
cumulative variance in various principal components.
¥
Principal components Ltent roots Percentage variance Cumulative variance
50.70PC i 9.63 50.70
15.30 66.00PC 2 2.91
11.00 77.10PC 3 2.09
t
85.30PC 4 i 8.301.56
1 **
lOX
Tabic 42. Latent vactors of variables for the first four principal
components for the ecotypes of
Panicum antidotale collected from Cholistan desert.
Variables PC I PC 2 PC 3 PC 4
Days taken to sprouting
Height of the plant.
Fresh weight of (he plant.
Number or tillers per plant
100 - seed weight
Number of branches on main tiller
Number of reproductive branches on main tiller
Number of brandies per pancile
Length of the inflorescence
Top internode length of the main tiller
Number of leaves on main tiller
Flag leaf area
Thickness of (he main tiller at 4lh node
lmernodal coverage by leaf sheath
Number of nodes on main tiller
Number of vegetative branches on main tiller
Ratio between vegetative and reproductive branches
Crown spread of the plant
Percentage of plant survival
0.265 -0.086 -0.333 0.064
0.281 -0.134 -0.153 0.195
0.282 0.162 0.001 0.261
0.014 0.062
0.110 -0.142 -0.331
0.278 0.072 -0.024
-0.084 -0.1 1 1 -0.167
0.217 -0.026 0.087
0.250 -0.450 -0.374
0.065 0.408 -0.370 0.139
0.305 0.007 0.043 -0.110
0.271 -0.045 0.077 -0.246
0.206 -0.094 -0.346 0.044
0.134 0.072 0.103 -0.672
0.215 -0.160 0.424 -0.135
0.408 0.217 -0.051
0.501 0.198 0.087
-0.234 ' -0.030 -0.133
-0.159 -0.287 -0.095
0.279
-0.251
0.272
0.279
0.289
0.079
-0.194
i0.179
0.034
0.266
0.036
i
I.
103
A
2.5B
U 0.0cu
-2.5C D
-3.0 -1.5 0.0
PC2Flfl: 33Group of ocotypeo of Panicim antldotala In
principal component 1 and 2
1.6 3.0
A
2.5 B
U 0.0a,
-2.5D C
i
o.oo1 2.401.00 1.60-0.80-1.0
PC3Fla: 36Group of ecotypes of Panlcua antidotale In
principal component 1 and 3
M
103
antidotale; even the plants collected from the same loeation/habitat (H3 and 1:4)
showed vivid differences between each other.
CORRELATION AMONG CHARACTERISTICS
Correlation among nineteen morphological characters of Panicum
antidotale is presented in table 43 and eorrelogram in fig 37. Days taken to
sprouting of plantlets showed a positive correlation with height of the plant,
number of reproductive branches on main tiller and thickness of th£ main stem at
4th node. (r<0.01) Height of the plant positively correlated with number of tillers
per plant (r<0.01) and number of leaves on main tiller (r<0,05). l;resh weight of
the plant depicted positive correlation (r<0.01) with number of branches on main
tiller, number of branches per panicle, number of leaves on main tiller and
number of tillers per plant. With regard to number of tillers per plant highly
significant (r<0.01) positive correlation was recorded with number of tillers per
plant and significant (r<0.05) with number of reproductive branches on main
tiller and crown spread of the plant. 100-sced weight showed no significant
correlation with any other character. Number of branches on main tiller ,
correlated significantly (r<0.05) with number of leaves on main tiller and highly
significantly (r<0.01) with number of branches on main tiller. Number of
reproductive branches on main tiller indicated positive and significant (r<0.05)
correlation with number (if leaves on main tiller and crown spread of the plant.
So far as the number of branches per panicle are concerned there was highly
significant (r<0.01) positive correlation with number of leaves on main tiller and
significant (r<0.05) with number of vegetative branches. Number of leaves on
main tiller significantly correlated (r<0.05) with flag leaf area and crown spread
of the plant. With regard to flag leaf area a positive and significant (0.05)
correlation was present with the crown spread of the plant. Number of vegetative
branches on main tiller significantly (r<0.05) correlated with the ratio between
vegetative and reproductive branches. So far as length of the inflorescence is
f •
V*
Table 43. Correlation among the nineteen morphological characters of Panicum antidotale.
ci C4C2 C3 C5 C6 C7 C8* C9 CIO Cll C12 03 C14 C15 06 C17 CIS2 0.846
3 0.678 0.796
0.712 0.892 0.767
-0.595 • -0.786 -0.728 -0.702
0.604 0.656 0.849 0.565 -0.551
0.848 0.695 0.648 0.774 -0.538
0.694 0.735 0.930 0.672 -0.619
0.024 -0.234 -0.270 -0.435 0.523
0.283 0.179 0.479 0.033 0.018
0.688 0.816 0.835 0.868 -0.701
0.652 0.629 0.583 0.669 -0.510
0.847 0.686 0.435 0.419 -0.523
0.135 0.128 0.158 0.305 -0.010
4
5
6
7 0.696
8 0.915 0.695
-0.063 -0.131 -0.106
0.406 0.175 0.482 0.462
9
10
11 0.774 0.777 0.839 -0.190 0.819
0.702 0.733 0.723 -0.185 -4.123 0.1890.396 0.593 0.559 0.127
0.398 0.475 0.326 0.241
0.303 0.487 0.434 0.654 -0.685 0.512 0.567
0.274 0.271 0.679 0.276 -0.371 0.912 0.422
-0.164 -0.140 0.316 -0.240 -0.087 0.530 -0.178 0.366
0.710 0.738 0.528 0.789 -0.676 0.523 0.807
0.287 0.243 -0.004 0.260 0.000 -0.026 0.185 -0.106
12
13 0.146 0.506 0.634
0.033 0.580 0.5510.409 -0.553 -0.420 0.671 0.6390.770 -0.035 0.393 0.563 0.523
0.119 0.394 0.088 0.0780.586 -0.274 -0.105 0.769 0.755
14 0.067
0.138 0.47515
16 0.129 0J97 0.446-0.127 0.056
0.637 0.419
0.109 0.017
170.025 0.776
0.639 0.224 -0.263
-0.010 -0.165 -0.127 0.238
18!19 0.108 0.043 0.082 0.049
* 1. Days taken to sprouting. 2. Height of the plant. 3. Fresh weight of the plant. 4. Number of tillers per plant. 5. 100-seed weight. 6. Number of branchestiller 7. Number of reproductive branches on main tiller. 8. Number of branches per panicle. 9. Length of the inflorascence.
on main
10. Top imemodc length of the main tiller.11. Number of leaves on main tiller. 12. Flag leaf area. 13. Thickuos of die main tiller at 4th node. 14. Imeraodal coverage by leaf sheath. 15. Number of nodes onmam tiller. 16. Number of vegetative branches oo main tiller. 17. Ratio between vegetative and reproductive branches.
!
H18. Crown spread of the plant. 19. Percentage of Splant survival.
108
Fig: 37 Correlogram amongcharacters of Panicum
nlnteenantldotale
morphological
6 t61 i
\<b /
A iA
/<P/K \
\/ \ /' V
r / / \
\i/
\K l .to\ 1\y ----""/ \
\/ \ l
\ t\
V-"'I
\ I\\
\\\
\
\I\
\ \ l\ \>
V\ »
toi
\\M /
VK— \----1-\
%\\
/
\VM -I
9191
1% 5%
1) Days taken to sprouting. 2) Height of the plant. 3) Freshweight of the plant. 4) Number of tillers per plant. 5) 100-seed weight. 6) Number of branches on main tiller. 7) Numberof reproductive branches on main tiller. 8) Number of branches
per panicle. 0) Length of the inflorescence. 10) Top internode
length of the main tiller. 11) Number of leaves on main
tiller. 12) Flag leaf area. 13) Thickness of the main tillerleaf sheath.at 4th node. 14) Internodal coverage by
15) Number of nodes on main tiller. 16) Number of vegetative
branches on main tiller. 17) Ratio between vegetative and
branches. 18) Crown spread of the plant.reproductive19) Percentage of plant survival.
I
106
concerned, top internode length of the main tiller, thickness of the main tiller at
4th node, internodal coverage by leaf sheath, number of nodes on main tiller,
ratio between vegetative and reproductive branches and percentage of plant
survival crown spread of the plant showed no significant correlation among them.
Lasiurus sclnclicus Henr.
In Lasiui'us scindicus principal component analysis collapsed the 15
morphological trials into four principal components and explained 98.80% of the
total genetic variation among the 4 ccotpcs. 'fhese .four principal components
individually accounted for 57.00, 23-80, 7 90 and 6.20 % of genetic variation
respectively (table 44). Ihe relationship of first four principal components with
the quantitative variables arc present in table 45.
The variables prominent in first principal component (PCI) were:
thickness of the main tiller at 4th node, height of the plant, internodal coverage by
leaf sheath, fresh weight of the plant, days taken to sprouting, length of the
inflorescence and flag leaf area. In second principal component (PC2) leaf
hairiness, top internodal length of the main tiller, number of nodes on main tiller,
number of leaves on main tiller and percentage of plant survival were significantly
variables. The prominent variables in third principal component (PC3) were:
number of branches on main tiller, percentage of plant survival, number of tillers
per plant, crown spread of the plant and fresh weight of the plant. Significant
variables in fourth principal component (PC4) are: percentage of plant survival,
number of branches on main tiller, number of tillers per plant, crown spread of
the plant and length of the inflorescence.
The plots of ecotypes drawn against PCI vs PC2 and PC3 shown in Fig 38
and Fig 39 exhibited a considerable high genetic variations existing among the
phological trails of collected ecotypes of Lasiurus scindicus.mor
107
Table 44. Latent roots, percentage variance and
cumulative variance in various principal components.
Principal components Latent roots Percentage variance Cumulative variance
PC J 8.54 57.00 57.00
PC 2 23.80 80.803.56
88.70PC 3 7.90 .1.18
i
94.800.92 6.20PC 4
.i
'
108
Table 45. Latent vactors of variables for the first four principal
components for the ecotypes of
Lasiurus scindicus collected from Cholistan desert.
Variables PC 1 PC 2 PC 3 PC 4
Days taken to sprouting. -0.309 -0.202-0.118 -0.121
Height of the plant. -0.005-0.323 0.188 -0.172
Fresh weight or the plant. -0.314 -0.057 0.306 0.137
Number of tillers per plant -0.275 -0.037 0.344 0.389
Number of branches on main tiller 0.206 -0.227 -0.426 0.473
Flag leaf area -0.302 0.123-0.220 -0.085
Number of leaves on main tiller -0.227 -0.2720.350 0.033
0.019-0.277-0.229 0.351Number of leaves on main tiller
-0.*304* -0.104 -0.068Length of the inflorescence -0.305
0.070 -0.148-0.124 0.476Top inienuxle length of the main tiller
0.003 -0.012-0.103-0.330Thickness of the main tiller at 4th node
0.149-0.143 -0.128-0.316Intemodal coverage by leaf sheath
-0.0330.261-0.4900.031Leaf hairiness
-0.320 ‘ 0.342-0.063-0.260Crown sprcatl of the plantt
0.420 0.5380.350' 0.058Percentage of plant survival
109
3.0 B
AU 0.0- ca, V
I
-3.0
D
-3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0
_0 PC2Fig: OB Group of ecotypes of Laalurua acSndicua In
principal component 1 and 2i
t
H
V
\1.8
D AB
0.0
(Jcu
-1.6
C-3.2
1.40 2.100.70-0.70 0.00-1.40PC3
Fig: 39 Group of ecotypea of Laalurua aclndlcua Inprlnolpel component 1 end 3
\
1“
110
CORRELATION AMONG CHARACTERISTICS
Correlation among fifteen characteristics of Lasiums scindicus is
incorporated in table 46 and its corrclogram in fig 40. Days taken to sprouting
indicated positive and highly significant correlation with height of the plarjt, flag
leaf area, length of the inflorescence, thickness of the main tiller at 4th node and
intcrnodal coverage by leaf sheath and significantly with fresh weight of the plant.
Height of the plant correlated highly significantly (r<0.01) and positively with
fresh weight of the plant, length of the inflorescence and thickness of the main
tiller at 4th node and significantly (r<0.05) with flag leaf area and internodal
coverage by leaf sheath. Fresh weight of the plant depicted positive and highlyi
significant (r<0.01) correlation with number of tillers per plant, flag leaf area.intcrnodal coverage by leaf sheath and significant (r<0.05) with length of the
inflorescence. With regard to number of tillers per plant, there was significant
(r<0.05) and positive correlation among this character and flag leaf area,
thickness of the main tiller at 4th node and intcrnodal coverage by leaf sheath.
Number of branches on main tiller correlated positively and significantly (0.05)
** with top internodc length of the main tiller. There was a highly significant
(r<0.01) and positive correlation among flag leaf area and oilier character such as
length of the inflorescence, thickness of the main tiller at 4th node and intcrnodal
coverage by leaf sheath, while this character correlated with crown spread of the
plant significantly (r <0.05). Number of leaves on main tiller depicted positive and
highly significant (r<0.01) correlation with number of nodes on main tiller and
significant (r<0.05) with the top internode length of the main tiller. Number of
nodes on main tiller correlated positively and significantly (r<0.05) with regard to
length of the main tiller. With regard to length of the inflorescence, this character
correlated with thickness of the main tillers at 4th node highly significantly
(r <0.01) and significantly (r<0.05) with internodal coverage by leaf sheath. Top
internode length of the main tiller showed highly, significant correlation (r<0.01).
But negative correlation with leaf hairiness, thickness of the main tiller at 4th node
was
I
Table 46. Correlation among fifteen morphological characters of Lasiurus scindicys.
C5 C6a C4 C7 C8 C9C2 CIO CI1 CI2Cl C13 C14*
0.834
0.774 0 $953 *
0.9260 "460.600
-0.3S5
0.907
0.499
0.513
0.848
0.135
0.915
0.898
0.062
0.729
-0.437
4
-0.601 -0.471-0.732
0.838 0.735 -0.231
0.392 -0.526
0.8056
0.336
0.342 0.998
0.856 0.428 0.441
-0.082 0.778 0.787
0.926 0.509 0.517
0.955 0.510 0.506
0.259 -0.739 -0.747
0.44105537
0.388 -0.5300.445
0.825
0.556
0.907
8
0.621 -0.581
0.191 -0.715
0.802 -0.503
0.768 -0.309
9
0.237 0.188
0.899 0.168
0.815 0.035
0.117 -0.837
0.556 0.158
-0.363 0.497
0 386
0 882
10 .I
0.92011
0.845 0.943
0.075 0.140
0.728 0.788 -0.042
-0.309 -0.323 -0.462 -0.216
0.82512
0.0540.095 0.295O.OU
0tZ\
13
0.591 -0.145 0.763
-0.132 -0.333
0.630 0.488
0.209
0.49614
0.127-0.011 0.201-O.:M15
* 1. Days taken to sprouting. 2. Height of the plant. 3. Fresh weight of the plant. 4. Number of tillers per plant. 5. Number of branches on main tiller 6. Flag leaf area.
7. Number of leaves on main tiller . 8. Number of nodes on main tiller. 9. Length of tlic inflorescence. 10. Top internode length of the main tiller. 11. Thickness of the
main tiller at 4th node. 12. Intcmodal coverage by leaf sheath. 13. Leaf hairiness. 14. Crown spread of the plant. 15. Percentage of plant survival.
:
MH -H
a
112tFig: 40 Correlogram - among
characters of LaBiuruBfifteen
Bcindicuamorphological
5f *ft
\ <?
"HA,/
i
!i **’*•»'»4-i4 /
i
*vv>/
.-4t / iI1 / t
/ioo t
It y\ \4I rll II /
/
/i1
4
/.V I
I yi
/it
/ /i/N‘. / /J± I / //0 /
k K /
N; v/ /
«>< // //
/ r/
V.N
Cl£r
1% 5%
1) Days taken to sprouting. 2) Height of the plant. 3) Freshweight of the plant. 4) Number of tillers per plant. 5) Numberof branches on main tiller. 6) Flag leaf area. 7) Number ofleaves on main tiller. 8) Number of nodes on main tiller.9) Length of the Inflorescence. 10) Top Internode length of
the main tiller. 11) Thickness of the main tiller at 4thnode. 12) Internodal coverage by - leaf sheath. 13) Leafhairiness. 14) Crown spread of the plant. 15) Percentage
of plant survival.
\
113
exhibited positive and highly significant (r<0.01) correlation with internodaj
coverage by leaf sheath while intcrnodal coverage by leaf sheath was correlated
significantly (r<0.05) with crown spread of the plant. So far as the leaf hairiness,
crown spread of the plant and percentage of plant survival is concerned no
significant correlation was observed among them.
i
» I-
Discussion\
i
A
114
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
The results given in previous chapter regarding the morphological studies carried
out on four ecotypes of Panicum antidotala and four ecotypes of Lcisiurus scindicus
are being discussed below.
A) PANICUM ANTIDOTALE Reiz.
It is clear from the results that in most of the morphological characteristics there >
significant variation among the ecotypes. Ecotype E3 proved to be the best ecotype
with regard to the days taken to sprouting, showing minimum number of days to
sprouting whilc'in all other ecotypes there was a steady increase in number of days to
sprouting of stubbles. In ecotype El very late sprouting was observed.
was a
Ecotype El. showing considerable variations and having
maximum value at the top in height of the plant, leaf area, thickness of the internode at
the 4th, node, number of nodes on main teller, number of rcgprductivc, crown vocer of
the plant, number of leaves on main steam, number of tellers per plant, part of the
internode covered by leaf sheath.
In case of the fresh weight of the plant, number of branches on main tiller,
number of vegetative branches on main tiller, number of branches per pancile and ratio
between vegetative and reproductive branches, ecotype E2 collected from "lloda Wala
Toba" was good as compare to the other ecotypes. Regarding the yield parameters such
115
as 100 - seed weight and length of the inflorescence ecotype EA proved .to be the best
one.
So far as the qualitative characters such as chlorophyll shades of leaves,
chlorophyll shades of stem, inflorescence colour and habit of the plant arc concerned,
there was a clear cut difference among the ecotypes in general and between the El and
E2 in particular
NUTRITION AS CHARACTERISTICS
The percentage of moisture and ash contents in various ectoypes of Panicum
antidotale that the moisture contents in El was maximum and the ash contents were
minimum. On the other hand in H2 moisture contents were minimum and ash contents
were maximum. It indicates that the grass collected from is more stress resistant as
compare to others less moisture in stem hardened it to check severe droughts and high
grazing pressure of animals. In this way the plant stubbles arc protected for next year’s
regencration/resprouting process. These results of Gul-c-Rana et. al., (1990), samy
(1979), Rchman (1970), and Kanodia and Rai (1981).
Crude protein in Ecotype El was maximum and crude fibre was minimum. In
other ecotypes these were similar with minor variations. These findings arc related to the
results of Gul-e-Rana et. al., (1990), Norton (1982) and Mondal and chakravarty (1968).
In the vegetative stage of growth, protein level in grasses is usually high which gradually
declines with the maturity of the plant. In the water stress Ihc protein level of thd grasses
decreases (Lyttleton, 1973).
116
) LASIURUSSC1NDICUS
IORPIIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
In Lasiurus scindicus, the ecotype eoliccted from "Mandri Wala Toba" (E3) took
laximum day in sprouting of plantlcis. Heotypc E1 proved to be the best one taking very
ss day in sprouting. In almost all of the characteristics responsible for biomass increase
le ecotype E3 showed excellent results. This delay in sprouting may be due to its less
:ss requirement for sprouting of stubbles. This thing indicates its drought hardness.
Ecotype E3 (Mandri Wala Toba), showing vivid differences from all other ecotypes
as at the lop in all the characteristics responsible in biomass increase, i.e. number of
:aves. on main stem, flag leaf area, number of tillers per plant, fresh weight of the plant,
eight of the plant, number of branches on main tiller, number of nodes on main tiller,
mgth of inflorescence, thickness of the main tiller at the 4th node and part of the
iternode covered by leaf sheath. In all above mentioned characteristics ecotype
ollcctcd from "Din Garh" Fort (El) shoed the minimum values. This thing indicates thÿt
ic ceotypc E3 is the drought resistant which can survive and produce maximum forage
icld in less supply of water, and El is not drought hardy.
In leaf hairiness and top internode length ecotype ecotype E2, collected from
laghd-ul-Jadcd campus was at the top. Because of maximum leaf hairs the leaves
iccomc very pincliing even to hand which considered to be the reduced forage value.
The ecotype E4 collected from "Islam Garh" Fort ranked at top in crown spread of
:hc plant and very less leaf hairs, while in flag leaf area, number of tillers per plant, fresh
weight of the plant, height of the plant, length of the inflorescence, thickness of the main
117
tiller at the 4ih node and part of the iniernode covered by leaf sheath it stood at the
second number, because of the very less hairiness the leaves of this ecotype were very
soft to touch.
Keeping in view all the morphological characteristics it is concluded that the
ecotypes collected from "Mandri Wala Toba" (E3) and from "Islam Garh Port" (E4)
proved to be the best ecotypes being the drought hardy, and producing maximum
boimass yield. Although the plant survival percentage in these two ecotypes was low.
This less survival percentage may be due to the change of environmental conditions.
So far as the qualitative characters arc concerned such as chlorophyll shades of
leaves and stem, inflorescence colour, carpal and stamen colour and habit of the plant
are concerned, the differences among the ecotypes in stamen colour, inflorescence
colour and habit of the plant. Ecotype Ei was the distinct having violet coloured stamens,
violet green and plant habit was erecty. This thing again helps that the ecotype El, having
distinction from 911 others is totally different in nature.
NUTRITIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
The percentage of moisture and ash contents in various ecotypes of Lasiurus
Scindicus shows that in ecotype VA less and ash contents arc high. This thing indicates
that this ecotype is more drought resistant one as compare to the other ecotypes.
because of the less moisture the stein become hard which resist against the severe
droughts and heavy grazing pressure. Hardness of the stem protects the plant stubbles
for next year resprouting / regeneration process. These results are same as the findings
of Gul-c-Rana et. al., (1990), Sarny (1979), Rchan (1970) and Kanodia and Rai (1981).
118
So far as the crude protein in this grass is concerned ecotype F4 and I*1 collected
from "Islam Garh Fort" and "Din Garh Fort" were the best one - having maximum crude
protein. These findings are same as that of Gui-e-Kana et. a!., (1990), Sharma (1979) and
Kehan (1970). A number of workers (Patel 1961, Sen and Hay (1961; Mathur 1967; Gupta
and Saxena 1970) studied the nutrioual value of [.asiurus Scindicus. The crude protein
status has been recorded as 5.9% (Sen and Kay 1964), 6.6 (Patel 1961), 6.7 (Das and
Gupta 1964) and 11.23 (Gupta and Saxena 1970). Crude protein contents decreased with
the age of maturity of the grass plant. (Kckib et. al. 1979). In the water stress conditions
in the protein level the plants is decreased (Lyttleton, 1973).
•>
FM
t *
>
k
\
f*
*1
*
Summaryv
\
*
T>ar'Mii» i
119
CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY
Beginning 1988 several expeditions were made in Cholistan desert to
collcet the perennial grass germplasm of the desert grasses including Panicum
antidotale and Lasiurus scindicus fron different habitats. Since the seeds of these
grasses were not available due to severe over-grazing therefore,
plantlcts/propagulcs of these grasses were uprootrd and transplanted in irrigated
field at Cholistan Institute of Desert Studies. The propagules of these species were
multiplied for further studies. Four ecotypes of Fanicum antidotale anf four of
Lasiurus scindicus showing contrasting morphological differences were selected
for the experiments. The plant samples of each ecotype were divided into five
equal sized plantlcts and were propagated at desert experimental area of
Cholistan Institute of Desert Studies, in a Randomized Complete Block Design
(RCBD) with three replicates. Plant to plant and line to line distances maintained
were one meter. Only one surface irrigation was applied at the time of
transplanting. When the plants were six months old data on a number of
morphological and nutritional characters were recorded. The data were analysed
by using Analysis of Variance and Principal Component Analysis .Techniques.
Some of the important findings arc given below-.
LASIURUS SCINDICUS Henr.
With respect to vegetative growth parameters such as height of the plant,
number of tillers per plant, Hag leaf area, number or leaves on main tiller, number
of nodes on main tiller, number of reproductive branches on main tiller,
120
thickness of the main tiller at 4th node, internodal coverage by leaf sheath,
spread of the plant and percentage survival of the plant, ecotype El collected from
"Khokhran Walt Khui" showed considerable variation and was at the top among all
the ecotypes. In case of the fresh weight of the plant, number of branches on main
tiller, number of vegetative branches on main tiller, number of branches per
pancile and ratio between vegetative and reproductive branches, ecotype E2
collected from "Roda Wala Toba" was good as compare to the other ecotypes.
Regarding the yield parameters such as 100 - seed weight and length of the
inflorescence ecotype EA proved to be the best one.
crown
*
So far as the qualitative characters such as chlorophyll shades of leaves,
chlorophyll shades of stem, inflorescence colour and habit of the plant are
concerned, there was a clear cut difference among the ecotypes in general and
between the hi and E2 in particular
Nutritional characteristics of the ecotypes of Panicum antidotal showed a
great deal of variation. The percentage of moisture and ash contents in various
cctoypcs of Panicum antidotale indicates that the moisture content in El were
higher and the ash content were low. On the other hand in E2 moisture content
were minimum and ash content were maximum. It indicates that the grass
collected from "Khokhran Wali Khui" (El) is more stress resistant as compare to
others. lx*ss moisture in stem hardened it to check severe droughts and high
grazing pressure of animals. In this way the plant stubbles arc protected for next
(Crude protein in Ecotype El
maximum and crude fibre was minimum. In other ecotypes these were similar
v'
wasyear’s regeneration/resprouting process.
with minor variations.
A
*ÿ
131
Principal component analysis showed that the the ecotypes of Panicum
antidotale HI and 122 collected from "Khokhran Wali Khui" and "Koda Wala Toba"
appeared to be the best one because the PCI axis showed maximum variation
(50.70%) and eleven major characteristics responsible for biomass increase were
prominent. It can be concluded that hi was at the top and 1:2 was at the second
number. On the other hand 1:3 and 1:4 collected from Shahccdap Wala loba
grouped together (Fig 36) and showed variation in plot PCI vs PC3 (Fig 37). It is
because of the significant characters in PC2 and PC3. but this variation can be
ignored because in PC3 variation percentage was only 11.00.
LAS1URUS SC1NDICUS Henr.
In Lasiurus scindiciis, the ecotype collected from "Mandri Wala Toba" (1:3)
took maximum days in sprouting of plantlets. Ecotype 1:1 proved to be the best
one taking very less days in sprouting. In almost all of the characteristics
responsible for biomass increase the ecotype 1:3 showed excellent results. This
delay in sprouting may be due to its less requirement of water for sprouting of
Ecotype E3 (Mandri Walastubbles. ITiis thing indicates its drought hardness.
Toba), showing vivid differences from all other ecotypes was at the top in all the
characteristics responsible for biomass increase, i.e. number of leaves on main
tiller, flag leaf area, number of tillers per plant, fresh weight of the plant, height of
the plant, number of branches on main tiller, number of nodes on main tiller,
length of the inflorescence, thickness of the main tiller at 4th node and intcrnodal
ge by leaf sheath. It indicates that the ecotype 1:3 is more drought resistant
as compare to others. It can survive and produce maximum forage yield in less
. eovera
supply of water.
i- Z5E
122
In leaf hairiness and top internode length ceoiypc E2, collected from
Baghd-ul-Jadccd Campus was at the top. The presence of dense leaf hairs the
leaves of this ecotype were very pinching to touch which considered to be the
reduced forage value.
The ecotype I:4 collected from "Islam Garh" Fort ranked at the top in case
of crown spread of the plant and leaf hairiness (very low) and in flag leaf
number of tillers per plant, fresh weight of the plant, height of the plant, length of
the inflorescence, thickness of the main tiller at the 4th node and internodal
coverage by leaf sheath it stood at the second number. Because of the very less
hairiness the leaves of this ecotype were very soft to touch.
4
There was no considerable differences in chlorophyll shades of leaves and
stem, inflorescence colour, carpal colour and habit of the plant. The differences
among the ecotypes were observed, in stamen colour, inflorescence colour and
habit of the plant, Ecotype 1:1 was the distinct having violet coloured stamens,
violet green inflorescence and erect plants. This thing helps to conclude that the
\ ecotype Cl, having distinction from all other ecotypes is totally different in
nature.
The percentage of moisture and ash contents in various ecotypes of
Lasiurus scindicus shows that in ecotype E4 collected from "Islam Garh Fort” the
moisture contents are less and ash contents are high. This thing indicates that this
ecotype is more drought resistant one as compare to the other ecotypes. Because
of the less moisture the stem become hard which resist against the severe
droughts and heavy grazing pressure. Hardness of the stem protects the plant
stubbles for next year resprouting / regeneration process. So far as the crude
133
protein is concerned ecotype 1:4 and 1:1 collected from "Islam Garh Fort" and "Din
Garh Fort''were the best one, having maximum crude protein. k
The principal component analysis showed that the ecotypes of Lasiurus
scindicus lil, 1:4 and 1:2 collected from "Din Garh Fort", Islam Garh Fort" and'
"Baghdad Campus" appeared to be the best one. The excellent growth of E2 may
be due to its adaptability because it was collected from the same desert area where
the experiment was conducted. In this way lil is at the top and 114 at the second
number. So far as 1:2 is concerned, it showed vivid differences from all other
ecotypes but remained at the bottom having least important characteristics.
The reason for the good growth of the E4 and 1:1 may be due to their
inherent genetic adaptability potential. These ecotypes of Lasiurus scindicus may
help in restoration of plant cover in Cholistan desert. Positive correlation among
various morphological characteristics indicate that these ecotypes may eventually
prove highly potential for per unit biomass production in degraded rangelands of
Cholistan desert.
*\
r "
A
«
Literature Cited»
t
A
124
CHAPTER VII
REFERENCES
1. Abbasi, A. A. 1987 Desertification in Pakistan. In: C.l;. Hutchinson and Amec.Webb. (bd). Arid Lands Development and Desertification Control. PakistanAgricultural Research Council, Islamabad.p 60-71.
2. Abdullah, M., M. Akram, M. Majeed, M. A. Butt, R. H. Qurcshi and M. Arshad.1991 Leplocbloa fusca: A high yielding candidate grass for utilization ofsalt-affected soil and water resources in Cholistan desert. Proceedings of
national seminar on people’s participation in the management of resourcesin arid lands, Nov. 11-13, 1990. Cholistan Institute of Desert Studies,
Islamia University, Bahawalpur. P 88-99.
3. Aggrawal, R. K., S. K. Saxcna and (Miss) P. Kaul. 1980. Herbage production and
nutrient composition of grasses in arid grassland as related to season and
rainfall: III. Lasiurus scindicus grasslands. Porage Res. 6:135-144.
4. Ahad, U. J. 1993- Morpho anatomy of drought resistance in different ecotypes
of Cenchrus ciliaris L from Cholistan. M. Phil Thesis, Department of *
Botany, University of Agriculture, Paisalabad.
5. Ahmed, M. 1988. Multivariate analysis of forests dominated by Agathis australis
Salisb., in Ncwzcaland. Pak. J. Dot., 20 (1):125 - 142.
6. Akbar, G„ S. Rafiquc and M. Asghar. 1994. Evaluation of different exotic grass
species in upland Baluchistan. Pakistan Journal of Forestry. Vol. 44, No. 1.
7. Akram, M. 1987. Desertification in Pakistan-causes. P 156-162. In: C.F.
Hutchinson and Anne C. Webb. (Ed). Arid Lands Development and
Desertification Control. Pakistan Agricultural Research Council, Islamabad
8. Akram, M., M. Abdullah and A. Majeed. 1991. Role of surface and ground slinc
for agriculture development in Cholistan desert. Proceedings ofwater
national seminar on people’s participation in the management of resources
ZM
135
in arid lands, Nov. 11-13, 1990. Cholistan Institute of Desert Studies,Islamia University, Bahawalpur. P 53-61
9. A. O. A. C. 1984. Official Methods of Analysis, Association of Official Analytical
Chemists, 14th Hd. Washington l).C.
10. Arshad, M. and A. K. Kao. 1994. The ecological destruction of Cholistandesert and its eco-regenration. Desertification control Bulletin, UNEP,
Kenya, No. 24, P 32-34
h11. Arshad, M., A. K. Kao, M. Akhtar and G. Akbar. 1995. Potentil genetic
adaptability of Cymbpogon jwarancus Schult. from Cholistan desert,
Pakistan. Sarhad J. ofAgric, Vol. XI (1) P 63-69.
12. Ashraf, M. Y. and A. H. Khan. 1990. Effect of drought on wheat varieties
during vegetative stage. Sci. Int. (Lahore), 2 (4): 325-327.
13. Bhimaya, C. P. and Ahuja, L D. 1967. Development of sewan grasslands in arid
part of Western Kajasthan. Indian Farming, Sept, issue.
14. Bokhari, U. G., F. Alyaeesh and M. Nori. 1986. Adaptive strategics of desert
grasses in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Kangc Management 40(1), January
1987. pi9-22.
15. Bosch, O.J. H. and J. I). Theunisscn. 1992. In: Desertified Grasslands: Their
biology and management. The Linncan Society of London. P 95.
16. Butt, N. M., N. Mohammad, Sartag and M. 1. Sultani. 1990. Performance of
tropical grasses under sub-humid subtropical conditions of Pakistan. Pak.
J. of Forestry. Oct. 1990. p 318-320.
of methods for17. Carleton, A. P. and H. W. Foote. 1965.
cstifnation of total leaf area of barley plants. Crop Science, 5(6): 602-603.A comparison
18. Casler, M. D. 1995. Patterns of variation in collection of perennial Kyegrass
accessions. Crop Sci. 35: 1169-1177.k
1i;
136
19. Coyne, P. I. and J. A. Bradford. 1985. Morphology and growth in seedlings of
several C4 perennial grasses. J. Range Manage. 38(6): 504-512
20. Crossa, J., I. H. Delaey and S. Taba. 1995. In: Core collection of plant genetic
resources. T. L. Hintum and K. A. V. Mocales (eds.). John Wiley and Sons,
New York, p 77.1
21. Das, R. I). and Gupta, 11. S., 1964. A note on the effect of different fertilizers
on protein status of some important grasses. Ann. Arid Zone, 2:185-187
22. Dhir, R. P., B. K. Sharma, B. K. Dutta and S. K. Saxena. 1985. Concentrations of
mineral elements in some arid zone species from a common habitat; 2.
Grasses. IndianJ. l:col,, 12(2): 205-208
1
23. Dhir, R. P., B. K. Sharma and B. K. Dutta. 1984. Mineral nutrient elements
in natural vegetation of arid Rajasthan: 1. Macro-elements. Annals of Arid
Zone. 23(2): 111-117
24. Dube, M., and P. Morisset. 1987. Morphological and leaf anatiomical variation
in Festuca rubra seusu lato (Poaccae) from eastern Quebec. Can. J. Bot.
65: 1065-1077
25. Dutta, B. K. and R. P. Dhir. 1980. Changes in mineral clement
concentration with growth in three arid zone grasses. Annals of Arid Zone.
19(1&2):96-102.
26. PAO, 1993- Pakistan-Cholistan Area. Development Project. Report No. 59/93ADB-PAK 58 (Pinal version). Pood and Agricultural Organization of the
United Nations, Rome.
27. Parooq, M., P. G. Khan and P. W. Khan. 1989. Nutritional evaluation of some
selected range grasses. Pak. J. of Porestry. January 1989.
28. Powler, N. L. 1988. What is a Safe Site?: Neighbour, Litter, germination date,
and patch effects. Ecology 69: 947-961
137
29. Frank, A. 13. 1994. Physiological comparisons of crested wheatgrass and
western whesigrass to water. Journal of Range Management 47(6) P 460-466.
30. Frasier, G. W., J. R. Cox and I). A. watershed. 1985. Emergence and survival
response of seven grasses lor six wet-dry seasons. Journal of Range
management, 38(4): 372-377.
31. Frasier, G. W. 1986. Water sequences and arid rangeland revegetation.
Rangelands: a resource under siege. Proceedings of the 2nd International
Rangeland congress, Adelaide Australia. Australian Academy of Sciences. P
321-322.
%
32. Fujimoto, F. 1993. Genetic resources of orchardgrass (Dactylis glomeratci L.)
and related subspecies from warmer regions. JARQ 27:106-111. ,
33- Gi/.lice, T. IS. Carter, Jr, and J.W. Burton. 1993- Genetic diversity in North
American soybean: 1. Multivariate analysis of founding stoek and relation
to coefficient of percentage. Crop Sci. 33 614-620.
y
34. Gul-e-Rana, Q. Iftikhar and M. Arshad. 1990. Chemical composition and
nutritive value of Panicum antidotalc. Sarhad J. of Agric., Vol. 6, No. 1.
35. Gupta, R. K. and S. K. Sexcna. 1970. Some ecological aspects of improvement
and management of sewan (Lasiunts scindicus) rangelands. Annals of Arid
Zone. Vol. 9. No. 3, P 193-208.
36. Gupta, A. K., M. S. Yadav and G. V. S. R. Krishna. 1985. Genetic variability and
association of forage quality characters in strains of Lasiurus scindicus
Hcnr. Annals of Arid Zone. 24(1): 57-62>
Hcophysiology of Negev upland annual grasses.37. Gutterman, Y., 1992.
Desertified Grasslands - Their Biology and Management. Linnean Society
Symposium series No. 13. Academic Press, l.ondon. P 146-162
V.
138
38. Johnson, D. A., T. M. J. Ford, M. D. Rumbaugh and I). Z. Richardson. 1989.Morphological and physiological variation among ecotypes of swcet-vctcHCHedysamm boreale Nutt). Journal of Range Management 42(6). P 496-501.
39. Joshi, H. 1985. Influence of clipping and water stress on growth performanceand nutrient value of Panicum coloratura L. Acta Botanica Indica, 13(1):
26-32. (Soils and Fort. Abst., 49(3): 2907, 1986.)
40. Kanodia, K. C. and P. Kai. 1981. Changes in forage yield and chemical
composition of range grasses. Annals of Arid Zone, 20(4):24l-245.
41. Kernick, M. D. 1992. The ecological amplitude and performance of the
desert grass Panicum turgidum. In: Chapman, G.P. (lid) Desertified
Grasslands-Thcir biology and management. Linnean society symposium
series number 13. Aeademic Press, London, p 110-126.
42. Roller, D. 1972. linvironmental control of seed germination, p. 1-101. In: T. T.
Kozlowski (cd.), Seed Biology. Vol. 11. Germination control, metabolism,
and pathology. Academic Press, New York.
43. Lad. S. K. 1992. Methods for studying genotypic root response to stress.
Sorghurn Newsletter 33. p 50-51.
44. Lazaridcs, M., 1992. Resurrection grasses (Poaceae) in Australia. In: Chapman,
G. P. (fid) Desertified Grasslands - Their- Biology and Management Linnean
Society Symposium Scries No.13- Academic Press, London. P. 214-234.
45. Lyttlcton, J. W. 1973. Proteins and nucleic acids. In: G. W. Butler and R. W.
and NewBinley (fids.). Chemistry and Biochemistry of Herbage. London
York Academic Press. Vol.l. pp. 63-103-
46. Machado, R. 1986. Comparison of buffel grass (Cencbrus ciliaris L ) cultivars
a red ferrallitic soil. Pastos-y-Forrajcs. 9 (3) : 222-229.on
V
139
47. Malik, M. N. and A. A. Khan 1966. Development of rangelands in West
Pakistan. Physco-chemical characteristics of soil and nutritive value of
forage grasses of Cholistan. Pakistan J. of Forestry.15(3);26l -273-
48. Malik, M. N. and A. A. Khan 1967. Nutritive value of kala chitta forests. Pakistan
J. of Forestry. 17(4):529-538.
49. Malik, M. N. and A. A. Khan 1971. The chemical composition of grasses asrelated to some edaphic factors of reserved of rakhs of Thai. Pakistan J. of
Forestry. 2 1 (3):287-294.
50. Mayer, A. M. and A. Poljakoff-Mayber. 1982. The germination of seeds. 3rd.lid. Pergamon Press, New York.
51. Mcrtia, R. S. 1986. Performance of Sewan (Lasiurus scindicus Henr.) Strains
in Wcstren Rajasthan. Annals of Arid Zone. 25 (l):84-85.
52. Metcalfe, 1). S., and C. J. Nelson. 1985. The Botany of grasses and legumes, p
52-63. In : Heath, R. F. Barnes and D. S. Metcalfe (Eds). Forages - Iowa State
University Press. U.S.A.>
53. Mondal, R. C. and A. K. Chakravarty. 1968. Nutrient content of some perennial
pasture grasses of the arid and semi-arid lands of Western Rajasthan. 1.
Protein and phosphorus content. Annals of Arid Zone. 7(1): 55-61.
54. Newman P.R. and 1,. li. Moser. 1988. Seedling root development and
morphology of cool season and warm season forage grasses. Crop Science
Vol.28p 148-151.
>55. Noor, M. 1991. Comparative performance of Cenchrus ciliaris ecotypes under
Barani conditions at Peshawar. Pakistan J. of Forestry. Oct. 1991. p. 183-
187.
56. Norton, B. W. 1982. Differences in species in forage quality. In: Nutritional
limits to animal production. Commonweath Agricultural Bureau, Farnham
House, U.K. pp.89.
*
130
57. Okamolo, K., S. Horiuchi, T. Ooba and G, Nishimura. 1976. Drought injuryand irrigation effect on the growth and yieldcultivated on mineral oil. Bull. Tokai-Kinki Nat./ Aric. Bxp. Station, 29: 1-39. (Herbage Abst., 47 (9): 2892, 1977).
on warm season grasses
58. Patel. 13. M. 1961. Animal nutrition in West India. I. C. A. U. Western RegionalAnimal Nutrition Station. Institute of Agriculture Aland. Gujrat State.
59. Peart, M. H. 1979. hxperiments on the biological significance of themorphology of seed dispersal units in grasses.J. I-col. 67: 843-863.
60. Peart, M. H. 1984. The effects of morphology, orientation and position of grassdiaspores on seedling survival. J. Bcol. 72: 437-453.
61. Pedrcira, C. G. S. and K. H. Brown 1996. Physiology, morphology and growth
of individual plants of selected and unsclcctcd Bahiagrass populations.Crop Sci. 36:138-142. ,
62. Puri, D. N. and M. K. Paliwal. 1976. Selection of promising grass strains of
Kota region. 1. Cenchrus ciliaris Linn. Annals of Arid Zone. 15 (1 and 2):
85-88.
63. Rai. P. P. S. Pathak, K.C. Kanodia and G. K. Dwivedi. 1982. Performance of
Cenchrus setigerus strains under rainfed conditions. Porage Res. 8 (2):13ÿ-139.
64. Rai, P., B. D. Patil., P R. Srcenath and K.C. Kanodia. 1980. Studies on the
height weight relationship of different cultivars of Cenchrus ciliaris Linn.
and Panicum antidotale Retz. Annals of Arid Zone. 19(1 and 2):29-36.
65. Kao, A. R. and M. Arshad 1991. Perennial grasses of Cholistan desert and their
distribution. Proceedings of national seminar on people’s participation in
the management of resources in arid lands, Nov.11-13-1990. Cholistan
Institute of Desert Studies, lslamia University, Bahawalpur. p 6-11.
131
66. Kao, A. K., M. Arshad and M. Shaftq. 1989. Perennial grasses germplasm of
Cholistan desert and its phytosociology. Cholistan Institute of DesertStudies, Islamia University, Bahawalpur, Pakistan.
67. Kehan, S. Tajammal Hussain and Habib ur Rehman. 1970. Comparative
studies on protein quality and mineral constituents of four varieties of
Pearl-Millet. Pakistan J. of Scientific Research, Vol.26, p.70.
68. Ringius, G. S. and J. G. Climieiewski. 1987. Morphological variation within and
among six populations of Trillium erectum in southern Ontario. Can. J.Hot. 65:2450-2457.
69. SAS Institute. 1985. SAS User’s Guide: Statistics. Ver. 5, Edw. Cary, North
Carolina.
70. Sarny, M. S .M. 1979. Nutritive values of some Egyptian 1'ced-stuffs with
poultry. Pakistan J. of Scientific Research, Vol.31, No. 1-2, pp. 9.
• k
71. Sandhu, G. R. 1993. Sustainable Agriculture. A Pakistan National Conservation
Strategy Sector Paper-2. The World Conservation Union Pakistan p.3-4.
72. Saxena, S. K. 1992. Vegctational characteristics and its degradation in Indian
arid zone. p. 19-30. In: A. S. Kolarkar, I). C. Joshi and K. D. Sharma (Ed.)
Rehabilitation of Arid Ecosystem. Scientific Publishers, Jodhpur.
73. Sen. K. C. and Ray, S. N. 1964. The nutritive value of Indian cattfe feeds and
the feeding of animals. I. C. A. R. Dull. No.25. New Delhi.
74. Sharma, D. K. R. P. Dhir and B.K. Butta. 1984. Mineral nutrient elements in
natural vegetation of arid Rajasthan: 11. Microelements. Annals of Arid
Zone. 23(3):235-241.
y
75. Sharma, S. K. and C.. M. Verma. 1983. Range Management Studies, II-
Pcrformancc of Cenchrus setigerus Vahl. strains in arid rangeland of
Rajasthan. Annals of Arid Zone. 22(4):279-282.
r
133
76. Sharma, S. K. and C. M. Vcrma 1983. Performance of Cenchrus ciliaris Linn.strains in an arid rangeland of western Rajasthan. Annals of Arid22(1): 23-27.
zone.
77. Sheikh, M. I., and S. M. Khan. 1986. Grass seeding in sub-tropical semi-arid
at Jamrud district, Peshawar. Pakistan Journal of forestry, 36 (3):143-zone
144.
78. Sheley, R., L. and L. I.. l.arson. 1994. Comparative growth and interferencebetween cheatgrass and yellow starthistle seed lings. Journal of Range
Management 47 (6):470-474.
79. Singh, K. A., M. N. Premchandran and D. P. Handa. 1985. Studies on fofageutilization based on height-weight relationship in Punicum species. Indian
Journal of Agronomy. 30 (4):450-454.
80. Steel, R. G. D. and J. H. Torrie. 1980. Principles and procedures of statistics.
2nd. hd., McGraw Hill Co., Inc. New York. U.S.A.
81. Souza, E. and M. E. Sorrells. 1991. Relationships among 70 North American
Oat Gcrmplasm: 1. Cluster Analysis Using Quantitative Characters. Crop
Sci. 31:599-605.
82. Thakur, S. S. li. C. Patnayak and W. Chand. 1985. Nutritional value of Lasiurus
scindiciis pasture. Annals of Arid zone. 24 (2):109-113.
83. Tichlcr, C. R. and P. W. Voigt. 1990. Variability in leaf characteristics and water
loss in the weeping lovegrass complex. Crop Sci. 30.111-117.
84. Uresk, D. W. 1990. Using multivariate techniques to quantitatively estimate
ecological stages in a mixed grass prairie. Journal of Range Management.
43(4): 282-285.
85. Van Dyne, G. M. P. M. Smith, R. L. Czaplewski, and R. G. Woodmanscc. 1978.
Analysis and synthesis of grassland ecosystem dynamics. In: Glimpses of
Ecology. International Scientific Publication Jaipur, India, p. 1-79-
rwi r
133
86. Voigt, P. W., L. ]. Croy and 1;. 1*. Horn. 1986, Forage quality of winterhardy
lovegrasses. Journal of Range Management. 39(3), 276-279.
; i 87. WASID, WAFDA. 1963- Reconnaissance Hydrological Survey of Fart of
Cholistan.I
88. Yadav, M. S. 1984. Improved varieties of forage grasses and legumes for arid
rangelands. Indian Farming (October).
89. Yadav. M. S. and G. V. S. R. Krishna. 1986. Studies on variability correlation
and path analysis in desert pasture grass Lasiurus scindicus Henr. Annals
of Arid Zone. 25(2): 157-163.
>90. Yadav, M. S., K. L Mehra and M. L Maroon. 1974. Genetic variability and
correlations of a few quantitative characters in the pasture grass, Cenebrus
ciliaris. Indian Forester, 100 (8):512-517. (Herbage Abst., 45(8):2870,1975).
91. Yadav. M. S., and B. Mai. 1988. Genotypic response to defoliation stress and’ nitrogen on the fodder yield, quality and underground biomass of buffel
grass (Cenebrus ciliaris Linn.). Rangeland Resource and Management.
Froc. of National Rangeland Symposium, 1GF1U, Jhansi, Range Management
Society of India, p. 203-208.
1
92. Yadav, M. S., and G. V. S. R. Krishna. 1987: Factor analysis of fodder yield
components in Lasiutws scindicus Henr. Annals of Arid Zone. 26 ( 1 and
2): 1-4.
'
• 4
*
top related