Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Millets are cultivated world-wide and are more prominent in South Asian and African countries. Among different millets, finger millets hold a significant position in terms of area and productivity. Due to negligence in various cultivation practices and improper selection of genotypes, most farmers fail to achieve optimum yields. In this scenario, the choice of a suitable cultivar is essential. Considering the above, an experiment was conducted at Post Graduate Research Farm of Centurion University of Technology and Management, Odisha, to evaluate suitable cultivars of finger millet. The study consisted of eight treatments comprising of V1: VL Mandua, V2: Hima, V3: Indravathi, V4: Vegavathi, V5: Champavathi, V6: Suvarnamukhi, V7: Bharathi, V8: Sri Chaitanya. The treatments were replicated thrice and the randomized block design was implemented. The results revealed that the highest plant height (158 cm) was observed with the cultivar Bharathi. Indravathi recorded the highest dry matter accumulation at harvest (776 g m-2), leaf area index at 50 DAT (3.56) and number of tillers at 50 DAT (66). However, the highest effective tillers per m2 (2.3) were recorded with the cultivar Sri Chaitanya, and the highest number of grains per ear head and weight per ear head were registered in the Bharathi variety. Further, the highest numbers of fingers per ear head (8.4), 1000 grain weight (2.82g), weight of grains hill-1 (6.72g) and length of finger (7.7cm) were recorded in the variety Indravathi. The cultivar Indravathi recorded the highest grain (2315 kg ha-1), stover (5372 kg ha-1) and biological yield (7687 kg ha-1) and Sri Chaitanya followed it. The study concludes that Indravathi and Sri Chaitanya can be considered short-duration and Hima as long duration cultivar for obtaining higher yield during Kharif season (July to September) under the hot and subhumid regions of Odisha.
Guntamukla et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: