Effect of different hydropriming times on the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)

Abstract

In dry land areas of the western half of Iran, chickpea due to exposure to rotation with wheat and barley play an important role in maintaining survival of agriculture in these regions. Seed priming is a simple and cheap method and is highly efficient and acceptable, especially in areas with low fertility. In this study, effects of different times of hydropriming on yield, yield components, phenological characteristics and percentage of protein of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) were examined in a randomized complete block design with three replicates in 2010. Seeds of chickpea were exposed at six different hydropriming times (2 h, 4 h, 6 h, 8 h, 10 h and control). The results of this experiment showed that the effect of hydropriming treatments for main branch and lateral branch number, number of pod per plant, biological yield, grain yield, time from planting to emergence, emergence to flowering, flowering to bloom and pod forming and growth length was significant. However, there was no significant difference between treatments in terms of plant height, number of seed per pod, number of empty pod, seed thousand weight, harvesting index, pod forming to seed pods and blooming to maturity, and percentage of seed protein.

Full text

African Journal of Biotechnology Vol. 10(66), pp. 14844-14850, 26 October, 2011
Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/AJB
DOI: 10.5897/AJB11.1283
ISSN 1684–5315 © 2011 Academic Journals
Full Length Research Paper
Effect of different hydropriming times on the
quantitative and qualitative characteristics of chickpea
(Cicer arietinum L.)
Iraj Zarei
1
, Yousef Sohrabi
2
*, Danial Kahrizi
3
and Kheirollah Yari
4
1
Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Graduate Student, University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran.
2
Assistance professor Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Kurdistan,
Sanandaj, Iran; P.O. Box 66177, 5175.
3
Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran.
4
Medical Biology Research Center, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran.
Accepted 1 September, 2011
In dry land areas of the western half of Iran, chickpea due to exposure to rotation with wheat and barley
play an important role in maintaining survival of agriculture in these regions. Seed priming is a simple
and cheap method and is highly efficient and acceptable, especially in areas with low fertility. In this
study, effects of different times of hydropriming on yield, yield components, phenological
characteristics and percentage of protein of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) were examined in a
randomized complete block design with three replicates in 2010. Seeds of chickpea were exposed at six
different hydropriming times (2 h, 4 h, 6 h, 8 h, 10 h and control). The results of this experiment showed
that the effect of hydropriming treatments for main branch and lateral branch number, number of pod
per plant, biological yield, grain yield, time from planting to emergence, emergence to flowering,
flowering to bloom and pod forming and growth length was significant. However, there was no
significant difference between treatments in terms of plant height, number of seed per pod, number of
empty pod, seed thousand weight, harvesting index, pod forming to seed pods and blooming to
maturity, and percentage of seed protein.
Key words: Chickpea, yield, phenological characteristics, hydropriming.
INTRODUCTION
In dry land areas, more seed planting depth may be
considered due to soil moisture limitations, and in such
circumstances, growth of seedlings may be difficult in that
the seedlings are not well settled; however, if seeds
germinate faster, they can be established properly (Artola
et al., 2003). Importance of germination and early
establishment in various plants is different; nonetheless,
if the plant does not have tillering ability, due to the lack
of appropriate green surface, the farm is not able to
compensate for its photosynthesis level; thus, the
importance of sprouting in these cases would be more
(Savage et al., 2004). Hydropriming can be used to
improve the germination and seedling establishment in
*Corresponding author. E-mail: y.sohrabi@uok.ac.ir. Tel: +98-
914-1421300.
low humidity conditions and low temperatures (Demir and
Van De Venter, 1999). Seed priming techniques include
treatments that have an influence on metabolic, bio-
chemical and enzymatic status of seed, thereby raising
its power in order to better play their biological functions,
such as germination and seedling establishment (Farooq
et al., 2006). Seed priming method is simple and
inexpensive, and it does not need special technical
complexity (Penalosa and Eira, 1993). Also, high
performance and acceptability of it, especially in areas
with low fertility where mainly poor farmers are living,
made some of the researchers to say that it is a way to
improve livelihoods of poor farmers and to reduce hungry
problems (Demir and Oztokat, 2003; Demir and Van De
Venter, 1999; Frett and Pill, 1991). In hydropriming
method, seeds were treated with pure water without
using any chemical, while the amount of water absorption

was controlled by seeds through the period when seeds
are in contact with pure water (Penalosa and Eira, 1993).
With the decreasing duration of water absorption or
performance of treatment in low temperature, rootlet is
prevented (Fujikura et al., 1993). As a result of this
treatment, the metabolic activity of germination is
stimulated and it gains balance in a place that causes
improvement of the germination rate, uniformity of plant
growth and improvement in vigor and seedling growth
(Artola et al., 2003; Fujikura et al., 1993). Acceleration of
germination in prime seeds can be due to the increasing
activity of the degrading enzymes, such as α- amylase,
synthesis of RNA and DNA, the amount of ATP and the
number of mitochondria (Afzal et al., 2002). In seedling,
rootlet and stem length show increase in the germination
of prime seeds, though this increase is higher in rootlet,
growth rate and root development. Also, increase in cell
divisions in the root cap is more and this along with better
water and nutrient absorption can improve the establish-
ment of plants. This matter in the study about the roots of
tomato, maize and rice has been approved (Mauromicale
et al., 1994). Rapid and optimal germination can often
spread in the root system in a shorter time and it causes
better establishment and usage of environmental inputs
(Khan et al., 1992). For the fact that germination and
seedling establishment in prime seeds is faster, better
and more uniform, the plants develop their root system in
a shorter time with favorable absorption of water and
nutrients, and a production of the photosynthesis parts to
reach the autotrophic period. However, having these
conditions in terms of biological and ecological status is
good for the plant (Duman, 2006). Seed priming give
better utilization of the environmental inputs, such as:
water, light to the plant, and ability to compete with other
plants and organisms in terms of ecological charac-
teristics. The results of these factors could lead to
increase of the duration and level of photosynthesis in
plants (Chivasa et al., 1998; Finerty et al., 1992). Clark et
al. (2001) during a two-year experiment with corn
observed that hydropriming can increase the yield of corn
by an average of 14%. Kaur et al. (2005), during studies
on the effects of seed priming on chickpea, observed that
yield was increased by 11%. However, diverse results
have been reported by other researchers; although, Bailly
et al. (2000) reported that application of priming and
osmopriming in sunflower reduced germination time. The
purpose of this study was to determine the best time of
hydropriming and its effects on various quantitative and
qualitative characteristics of chickpea. Thus, the set of
these traits can make growth of chickpea faster with
better establishment of seedling in unfavorable dry land
conditions and lead to better tolerance in this situation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This experiment was conducted in Mahidasht, Iran, with the
geographic latitude of 34° 32' 53'' N and longitude of 46° 59' 16'' E
and an elevation of 1371 m above sea level during the 2010
Zarei et al. 14845
growing season. In this study, the seed of Hashem cultivar was
prepared from the Sararood Dryland Institute, though the initial
humidity of seeds was 10%. Seeds before planting were exposed to
6 hydropriming treatments (2 h, 4 h, 6 h, 8 h, 10 h and control) in a
randomized complete block design with three replications. For
doing hydropriming treatments, the required size of pea seeds in
plastic containers were placed, and then distilled water was added
to the seeds at a temperature of 25°C for 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 h. Seeds
after conducting priming treatments were air dried to reach the 10%
humidity. The seeds were then put in the refrigerator at a
temperature of 5°C until it was later used. Land preparation
operations including ploughing, disk and trowel to the desired way,
before planting was done in the first half of October. After taking
track, map test was implemented on the ground. Planting chickpea
as autumn planting in the first half of November was done by hand.
Each plot contains 14 lines, and the distance between two lines in
the plot was 50 cm, while the distance between two replicates was
considered as two meters. Different stages of plant phenology were
determined for 50% of the plants on that stage (Keatinge and
Cooper, 1983); although, the seeds that part of their seedlings in
the soil surface was visible as green seeds were considered (Fehr
and Caviness, 1980). After removal of margins, plants were
harvested by hand, while seed protein content was obtained
through Kjeldahl method. The harvesting index was calculated by
dividing grain yield (g)/on total shoot dry weight (g) (Keatinge and
Cooper, 1983). Before complex statistical analysis, normality tests
were performed and after ensuring normal distribution of data, their
analysis was attempted. The data obtained from the study were
analyzed by the statistical software of SAS, and the mean data
were done by DUNCAN test (P ≤ 0.05). Nonetheless, Excel 2003
software was used for charting.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Plant height
The result of analysis of variance showed that hydro-
priming effect on plant height is not significant (Table 1).
Number of branches
Results of analysis of variance showed that the effect of
hydropriming on number of main branch (P ≤ 0.05) and
the number of lateral branches was significant (P ≤ 0.01)
(Table 1). Hydropriming for 6 h and the control of plants
had the highest (2.93) and lowest (2.57) number of main
branches, respectively (Table 2); whereas the mean
comparison showed that hydropriming for 6 h with 7.20
and hydropriming for 10 h with 5.43 had the maximum
and minimum number of lateral branches respectively
(Table 2). In 10 h hydropriming, the number of lateral
branches reduced; in this case, determining the appro-
priate hydropriming time was obvious. Penalosa and
Eiraw (1993) stated that the action of unsuitable
hydropriming time has negative effects on tomato seeds.
Increasing the number of main and lateral branches by
hydropriming could probably be due to better perfor-
mance of primed seeds in using environmental
resources. It is possible that in plants that are established
lately, reduction of soil moisture in the vegetative stage
caused reduction in the number of branches. Also, it
seems that in the treatments which have longer time of

14846 Afr. J. Biotechnol.
Table 1. Analysis of variance of various quantitative and qualitative traits in response to various hydropriming times in chickpea plant.
Source of
variation
Df.
Plant
height
Number
of main
branches
Number
of lateral
branches
Number
of pod/
plant
Number
of seed/
pod
Number
of
empty
pod
Seed
thousand
weight
Biological
yield
Grain
yield
Harvesting
index
Block 2 2.58
ns
0.123* 0.635
ns
1.024ns 0.0024ns 0.802ns 379.0ns 163360.3ns 14635.9** 22.18ns
Hydropriming 5 2.21
ns
0.097* 1.563** 11.112* 0.0045ns 0.223ns 62.6ns 255168.0* 6177.6* 8.77ns
Error 10 1.14 0.028 0.2237 3.315 0.0074 0.268 167.59 74830.5 1784.0 9.35
CV 3.2 6.3 7.5 9.5 7.8 10.0 4.2 9.1 5.5 11.8
*Significant at P ≤ 0.05; **Significant at P ≤ 0.01; df: degree of freedom; CV: coefficient of variation.
Table 2. Effect of different hydropriming times on plant height, and the
number of main and lateral branches in chickpea.
Time (h) Number of main branch Number of lateral branch
0 2.57
b
5.77
b
2 2.57
b
6.07
b
4 2.90
a
7.13
a
6 2.93
a
7.20
a
8 2.63
ab
6.20
a
10 2.53
b
5.43
b
Each value is the mean of three replicates (Duncan’s test, P ≤ 0.05).
emergence, increasing temperature during vegetative
growth caused the acceleration of the development and
reduction of vegetative growth, which finally decreased
the numbers of branches per plant.
Number of pods per plant
The results of this study showed that the effect of
hydropriming on the number of pods per plant was
significant (P ≤ 0.05) (Table 1). Hydropriming for 6 h
(22.2) and the control (16.8) had the highest and lowest
number of pods per plant, respectively (Figure 1). Bastia
et al. (1999) reported that the use of hydropriming
treatment in safflower increased the number of heads per
plant, the number of seeds per head, and the seed
thousand weight and yield. Moreover, the cause of
differences in the number of pods in plant could be due to
the prolonged period of bloom and pod formation at the
right time. Since it was found that hydropriming affected
the phenological stages of growth, the role of the
indeterminate chickpea growth in this case was not good;
although flowering in the suitable environmental condition
can produce the number of fertile flowers and
consequently more pods. Nonetheless, Tomar et al.
(1982) stated that lateral branches had an important role
in the production of pods.
Number of seeds per pod
The analysis of variance showed that the effect of
hydropriming on the number of seeds per pod was not
significant (Table 1). In the study of other researchers, it
was also observed that the number of seeds per pod was
often in the control of genetic characteristics but less
influenced by the agronomic and environmental factors
(McKenzie et al., 1995; Mohammadi et al., 2005).
Empty pods
In this study, the result shows that the effect of
hydropriming on empty pods per plant was not significant
(Table 1).
Seed thousand weights
The analysis of variance showed that the effect of
hydropriming on seed thousand weight was not
significant (Table 1), though Mckenzie and Hill (1995)
reported that the operation did not affect the seed
thousand weight.
Biological yield
The effect of hydropriming on biological yield was
significant (P ≤ 0.05) (Table 1), in that hydropriming for 6
and 4 h with 3550.7 and 2776.5 kg/ha had the highest
and lowest biological yield, respectively (Figure 2).

Zarei et al. 14847
18.3bc
20.5ab
22.2a
18.5bc
18.4bc
16.8c
0
5
10
15
20
25
0
2
4
6
8
10
Time
(h
)
Number of pods per plant
Figure 1. Effect of different hydropriming times on pods per plant in chickpea.
2830.4b
2914b
3108.4ab
3550.7a
2844.3b
2776.5b
2400
2600
2800
3000
3200
3400
3600
0
2 4
6
8 10
Time (h
)
Biological yield (kg/ha)
Figure 2. Effect of different hydropriming times on biological yield in chickpea.
Grain yield
The effect of hydropriming on grain yield was significant
(P ≤ 0.05) (Table 1). Hydropriming for 6 and 4 h with
859.9 and 732.5 kg/ha had the highest and lowest yield
respectively (Figure 3). These results confirm those of
Nagar et al. (1998), Clark et al. (2001), Kaur et al. (2005)
and Harris et al. (2001). The difference between the
treatments may be due to differences in the number of
pods per plant from different hydropriming applied
treatments. Also, the prolonged period of flowering to pod
forming in suitable environmental condition can increase
the number of pods per plant and thus grain yield.
Earliness trait in dryland areas causes flowering and pod
forming occurrence when thermal stress and less
moisture is present. The research has shown that legu-

14848 Afr. J. Biotechnol.
777.5b
762.1b
732.5b
859.9a
744.9b
759.8b
650
700
750
800
850
900
0
2
4
6
8
10
Time (
h
)
Grain yield (kg/ha)
Figure 3. Effect of different hydropriming times on grain yield in chickpea.
mes yield fluctuations have a high dependence on
weather condition at critical stages of growth, and dry and
warm temperature caused reduction in plant growth
(Saxena, 1990). Tomar et al. (1982) stated that the
number of pods per plant is the highest part of chickpea
yield.
Harvesting index
In this study, it was observed that hydropriming effect on
harvesting index was not significant (Table 1).
Seed protein
In this study, the effect of hydropriming on percentage of
seed protein was not significant (Table 3).
Phenological stages
The phenological stages of chickpea were affected by
hydropriming treatments. The effect of hydropriming on
planting to emergence time, emergence to flowering and
overall growth period (P ≤ 0.01) and time of flowering to
pod forming was significant (P ≤ 0.05), but the time of
pods forming to maturity was not affected by hydro-
priming treatments (Table 3). The control treatment and
hydropriming for 6 h had the longest (16.3 days) and
shortest (12.3 days) planting to emergence time,
respectively (Table 4); thus, this result confirm those of
Nagar et al. (1998), Bailly et al. (2000) and Farooq et al.
(2010). Rapid germination and seedling establishment in
prime seeds caused plants to reach autotrophy stage in
shorter time and give good competitive ability to the plant
(Demir and Van De venter, 1999). Since the planting to
emergence time was affected by the hydropriming
treatments, the emergence date as compared to the
control was different. In fact, we can say that
hydropriming in addition to the stated effects has the
same effect on the planting date as well. Planting date
affects the phenological stages of pea, in that in dry
conditions, it usually relies on stored moisture in the
cultivated soil, and is associated with the increasing
temperature in the end of the growing season (Saxena,
1990); although, short interval from planting to
emergence is important in such circumstances. Control
treatment and hydropriming for 6 h had the longest and
shortest time from emergence to flowering for 55.3 and
48.7 days respectively (Table 4). It seems that in early
establishment, vegetative and reproductive growth was
faced with proper temperature and humidity, so the ability
of plant to produce dry matter and create larger the
reservoirs would be increased (Saxena, 1980). A study of
mean comparison (Table 4) shows that hydropriming of 6
h and control treatment had the longest and shortest
period from flowering to pod forming time for 13.67 and
11 days, respectively. Progress of the developmental
stages of chickpea is associated with the increasing
temperature and day length. Also, evapotranspiration
during reproductive growth increased and the plant faced
with limited soil moisture caused the plant reproductive
period to reduce. Control treatment and hydropriming for
6 h had the longest and shortest growth period (planting
to maturity) for 102.7 and 95 days, respectively (Table 4).

Zarei et al. 14849
Table 3. Analysis of variance of phenological stages and seed protein in response to various hydropriming times in chickpea plant.
Source of
variation
Df.
Planting to
emergence
Emergence to
flowering
Flowering to pod
forming
Pod forming to
maturity
Maturity
Seed
protein
Block 2 0.389
ns
26.0* 1.556
ns
0.056
ns
18.67* 0.329
ns
Hydropriming 5 7.389** 28.77** 3.289* 1.689
ns
32.67** 0.490
ns
Error 10 1.056 4.67 0.956 2.322 3.53 1.322
CV 7.1 3.8 8.0 7.7 1.9 4.5
*Significant at P ≤ 0.05; **significant at P ≤ 0.01; df: degree of freedom; CV: coefficient of variation.
Table 4. Effect of different hydropriming times on the time from planting to emergence, emergence to flowering, flowering to pod forming, pods
forming to maturity and growth duration (per day) in chickpea.
Time
(h)
Planting to
emergence (day)
Emergence to
flowering (day)
Flowering to pod
forming (day)
Forming pods to
maturity (day)
Growth duration
(day)
0 16.3
a
55.3
a
11.0
c
20.0
a
102.7
a
2 15.3
a
53.3
a
11.7
bc
20.7
a
101.0
ab
4 14.7
a
52.7
ab
11.7
bc
19.3
a
98.3
bc
6 12.3
b
48.7
c
13.7
a
20.3
a
95.0
c
8 12.7
b
49.0
bc
13.3
ab
20.3
a
95.3
c
10 15.0
a
56.0
a
12.0
abc
18.7
a
101.7
ab
Each value is the mean of three replicates (Duncan’s test, P ≤ 0.05).
It seems that rapid germination and appropriate
establishment of plant caused the plant to finish its
vegetative and reproductive growth in a shorter time. It is
possible that in the treatments which have longer
emergence time, increasing temperature during vegeta-
tive period causes reduction of the vegetative growth
which resulted in reduction of the crop growth period.
Thus, changes in the phenological stages can affect plant
growth and yield ultimately. The prolonged period and
pod forming and its compatibility with favorable
environmental conditions can improve the number of
pods per plant which is one of the main components of
yield that can consequently increase the yield. However,
it seems that the role of the indeterminate growth of
chickpea also has no influence in this case.
REFERENCES
Afzal A, Basra MA, Ahmad N, Warraich EA (2002). Effect of priming and
growth regulator treatments on emergence and seedling growth of
hybrid Maize (Zea mays L.). Int. J. Agric. Biol. 4: 303-306.
Artola A, Carrillo-Castaneda G, Santos GDL (2003). Hydropriming: a
strategy to increase Lotus corniculatus L. seed vigor. Seed Sci.
Technol. 31: 455-463.
Bailly C, Benamer A, Cornineau F, Come D (2000). Antioxidant systems
in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) seeds as affected by priming.
Seed Sci. Res. 10: 35-42.
Bastia DK, Rout AK, Mohanty SK, Prusty AM (1999). Effect of sowing
date, sowing methods and seed soaking on yield and oil content of
rainfed safflower grown in Kalahandi, Orissa. Indian J. Agron. 44:
621-623.
Chivasa W, Harris D, Chiduza C, Nymudeza P (1998). Agronomic
practices, major crops and farmers perceptions of the importance of
good stand establishment in musikavanhu. J. Appl. Sci. 4(2): 109-
125.
Clark LJ, Whalley WR, Ellis J, Dent K, Rowse HR, Savage WF,
Murungu FS, Chiduza C (2001). On-farm seed priming in maize: a
physiological evaluation. Seven Eastern and Southern Africa
Regional Maize Conference. 11-15 February. pp. 268-273.
Demir I, Oztokat c (2003). Effect of salt priming on germination and
seedling growth at low temperatures in watermelon seeds during
development. Seed Sci. Technol. 31: 765-770.
Demir I, Van De Venter HA (1999). The effect of priming treatments on
the performance of watermelon (Citrullus lanatus (Thunb.) Matsum.
and Nakai) seeds under temperature and osmotic stress. Seed Sci.
Technol. 27: 871-875.
Duman I (2006). Effects of seed priming with PEG and K
3
Po
4
on
germination and seedling growth in Lettuce. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 9(5):
923-928.
Farooq M, Basra SMA, Tabassum R, Ahmad N (2006). Evaluation of
seed vigour enhancement techniques on physiological and
biochemical techniques on physiological basis in coars rice (Oriza
sativa L.). Seed Sci. Technol. 34: 741-750.
Fehr WR, Caviness CE (1980). Stage of soybean development. Iowa
Crop. Exp. Serr. Agric. Home Econ. Exp. Stn. Spc. Rep. p. 80.
Finerty TL, Zajick JM, Hussery MA (1992). Use of seed priming to by
pass stratification reguirements of three aquilegia species. Hort. Sci.
27: 310- 313.
Frett JJ, Pill WG (1991). Germination characteristics of osmotically
primed and stored impatiens seeds. Scietia Horticulture, 26: 1158-
1169.
Fujikura Y, Kraak HL, Basra AS, Karssen CM (1993). Hydropriming, a
simple and inexpensive priming method. Seed Sci. Technol. 21: 639-
642.
Harris D, Raghuwanshi BS, Gangwar JS, Singh SC, Joshi KD, Rashid
A, Hollington PA (2001). Participatory evaluation by farmers of on-
farm seed priming in wheat in India, Nepal and Pakistan. Exp. Agric.
37: 403-415.
Kaur S, Gupta AK, Kaur N (2005). Seed priming increases crop yield
possibly by modulating enzymes of sucrose metabolism in chickpea.
J. Agron. Crop Sci. 191: 81-87.
Keatinge JDH, Cooper PJM (1983). Kabuli chickpea as a winter-sown

14850 Afr. J. Biotechnol.
crop in northern Syria: moisture relations and crop productivity. J.
Agric. Sci. (Cambridge). 100: 667-680.
Khan A, Maguire A, Abawi JD, Salma M (1992). Matrico conditioning of
vegetable seeds to improve stand establishment in early field
planting. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 117: 41-47.
Mauromicale GV, Canallaro S, Lerna A (1994). Effects of seed
osmopriming on emergence characteristics of summer squash. Acta
Horticultuace, 362: 221-228.
McKenzie BA, Hill GD (1995). Growth and yield of two chickpea (Cicer
arietinum L.) varieties in Canterbury, New Zealand. New Zealand J.
Crop. Hort. Sci. 23: 467-474.
McKenzie BA, Hill GD, Gunaratnam R, Jones AV (1995). Evaluation of
the ICARDA cold tolerance chickpea nursery. Proceed. Agron. Soc.
NZ. 25: 47-50.
Mohammadi G, Javanshir A, Khooie FR, Mohammadi SA, Zehtab
Salmasi S (2005). Critical period of weed control in chickpea. Weed
Res. 45: 57-63.
Nagar RP, Dadlani M, Sharama SP (1998). Effect of hydropriming on
field emergence and crop growth of maize genotypes. Seed Res. 26:
1-5.
Penalosa APS, Eira MTS (1993). Hydration-dehydration treatments on
tomato seeds (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). Seed Sci.Technol. 21:
309-316.
Savage WE, Dent KC, Clark LJ (2004). Soak conditions and
temperature following sowing influence the response of maize (Zea
mays L.). Field Crop Res. 90: 361-374.
Saxena MC (1990). Problems and potential of chickpea production in
the nineties. In: van Rheenen HA, Saxena MC. (eds) Chickpea in the
nineties. Proceedings of the second international workshop on
chickpea improvement. ICRISAT, Patancheru, India. 4–8 Dec 1989.
pp. 13–27.
Tomar GS, Mishra Y, Rao SK (1982). Path analysis and its implications
in selection of high yielding chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Indian J.
Plant Physiol. 25: 127-132.