International ournal of Agricultural Science & · PDF filetehnology whih inludes atmosheri,...

Volume 2 Issue 1 2013

June 2013 ISSN 2319-880X

International Journalof

Agricultural Scienceamp Technology

COVERAGE OF THE JOURNAL

OBJECTIVE OF THE JOURNAL

CALL FOR PAPERSWe invite you to submit high quality papers for review and possible publication in all areas of environmental science and technology which includes atmospheric terrestrial and aquatic environment pollution control and abatement technology conservation of natural resources environmental health human behaviour and toxicology All authors must agree on the content of the manuscript and its submission for publication in this Journal before it is submitted to us Manuscripts should be submitted by e-mail to the Editor at trcsinha_12yahoocom manisha_nppyahoocom

To promote and encourage specially YOUNG SCIENTISTS to take active part in research and get acquainted with the lat-est development and research in the field of environmental science and technology To promote cooperation in the pursuit of research in general and to exchange and contribute to the progress in the field of environmental science and technology in particular

Following types of papers are invited for publication in this Journal -a) Original Research Papers of Scientific values b) Review Papersc) Short Communications d) Case Reports e) Letters to the Editor f) As you see

TYPES OF PAPERS ARE INVITED

REVIEWERS PROCESSAll manuscripts are reviewed by an editor and members of the Editorial Board or qualified outside REVIEWERS Deci-sions will be made as rapidly as possible and the Journal strive to return reviewerrsquos comments to authors within 6 weeks The Editorial Board will re-review manuscripts that are accepted pending reviewers It is the goal of the this Journal to publish manuscripts within 4 weeks after submission after getting O K report from the AuthorCONTACT US

ABOUT THE JOURNAL

For purchase of books Journals publication of books print-ing of any type of matter quotations etc should be sent di-rectly to the CHIEF EXECUTIVE whose address is as follows ToMrs Reshma Srivastava MATHE CHIEF EXECUTIVENATIONAL PRINTER amp PUBLISHER22(Basement)G-2 Tulsi TowerAlaknanda Community Centre NEW DELHI - 110019 (INDIA)Email infonpp12gmailcom

For all publication matters related to the Journals Accept-ance letter for publication of articles Invoice Reprints etc should be sent directly to the PUBLICATION EDITOR whose address is as follows ToMrs Manisha Verma BSc BTechPUBLICATION EDITOR( Ј )NATIONAL PRINTER amp PUBLISHER22(Basement) G-2 Tulsi Tower Alaknanda Community Centre NEW DELHI - 110019(INDIA)Email manisha_nppyahoocom

For publication of your article Acceptance letter Review Reports Status Report and all other quarries related to your articles should be sent directly to the Editor-in-Chief whose address is as follows

Prof TRC Sinha THE EDITOR-IN-CHIEFS-233 First Floor Greater Kailash- 2NEW DELHI - 110048 (INDIA) Email trcsinha_12yahoocom

1 Soil Science 2 Water amp Soil Pollution

3 Agricultural Entomology 4 Aquaculture

5 Groundwater Pollution 6 Pesticides

7 Limnology 8 Sericultural Biotechnology

9 Toxicology 10 Plant Protection Science

11 Animal Husbandry 12 Meteorology

13 Biological and Chemical Control 14 Agronomical Science

15 Seed Science and Technology 16 Forest and Forestry

17 Agricultural Waste 18 Any other related topics

IJASTInternational Journal of

Agricultural Science amp Technology


National Printer amp Publisher18 amp 22 (Basement) G-2 Tulsi Tower

Alaknanda Community Centre New Delhi - 110 019

June- 2013

‟ Ŧħis journal is Indexedabstracted in Indian Science Abstract along with Nationalor International abstracting Indexing

services if covered in these secondary publicationsrdquo

copy Journal on Agricultural Science and Technology (IJAST)All rights reserved No portion of material can be reproduced in part or full without the prior permission of the Editor

Note The views expressed herein are the opinions of contributors and do not reflect the stated policies of the Ŋational Ƥrinter and Ƥublisher

International Journal ofAgricultural Science

amp TechnologyVolume 2 2013 Issue 1 2013

Editorial Board

Editor in-ChiefProf T R C Sinha

Retd Prof of Zoology B R A Bihar University S-233 First Floor Greater Kailash- 2

NEW DELHI - 110048E-mail trcsinha_12yahoocom

Chief Editor Prof Padmakar Tripathy

Dept of Meteorology N D University of Agri and Tech

FAIZABAD - 224 229 U PE-mailpmtmausamgmailcom

Ƥublication ΞditorΈr Μanisha flerma BSc Btech

Publication EditorNATIONAL PRINTER amp PUBLISHER

22 Basement Tulsi Tower Alaknanda Community Centre

New Delhi - 110019E-mail manisha_nppyahoocom

Associate Editor

Dr K K SinghHead Agromet Services amp

Scientist-FIndia Meteorological Department Lodhi Road New Delhi - 110003

Dr A P Dubey Professor (Agromet)

Division of AgrometeorologyCSA U of A amp Kanpur-208002 Dr S R Mishra Asstt Professor

Deptt of Agril MetNDUAamp T Faizabad-224229 e-mail srmmausamindiacom

Dr A K Singh Asstt ProfessorDepartment of Crop Physiology

N D U A amp T FAIZABAD - 224 229

E assinghkumar3gmailcom

ISSN 2319-880X

Members of Editorial Board

June - 2013

Dr V N PathakAsstt Prof Deptt of GPB

SMM Town College Ballia UPE vijayanandpathak76gmailcom

Dr Alok Kumar SinghDeptt of Crop Physiology

N D U A amp T FAIZABAD-224 229 e-mail aloksinghagrigmailcom

Dr B P ShahiAsstt ProfSMS (Horticulture)

Krishi Vigyan KendraMeerute-mail bhshahi1975yahoocom

Dr P K SinghIndia Meteorological Department

Mausam Bhavan Lodhi RoadNew Delhi-110003 India

e-mail pksingh66gmailcom Prof J P Srivastava

Head Deptt of Plant PhysiologyInstitute of Agricultural Sciences

Banaras Hindu University Varanasi Dr Vyas Pandey

Prof amp Head Deptt of AgrometA A U Anand Gujarat

e-mail pandey04yahoocomDr Akhilesh SrivastavaAssoc Prof Horticulture

M P U of Agril amp Tech Udaipur Dr Anil Kumar SinghAsstt Prof Agronomy

NDUAamp T Faizabade-mail aksmausamgmailcom

Dr Neeraj KumarAstt Prof Deptt of Soil Science

N D U A amp T FAIZABAD - 224 229 e-mail nksoilchemgmailcom

Technical Editor

Dr A K Srivastava Principal Scientist (Agromet)

I I S R Lucknow Earunkumarsrivastava2gmailcom

Assistant Editors

DrPrateek TripathiMolecular amp Computational Biology

University of Southern CaliforniaTRF 108 3430 S Vermont Ave

Los Angeles CA-90089Email tprateekdornsifeuscedu

Dr Vishva Deepak TripathiResearch Associate

NRC for AgroforestryNear Pahuj Dam

Gwalior Road Jhansi -284 003 UPDr S B Yadav

Department of AgrometA A U Anand Gujarat

e-mail sbmetyahooinDr R P Kaushal Asstt Prof

Deptt of Statistics amp Social ScienceMSKJUAampT Banda - 210001 (UP)Email kaushal_rajendraindiacom

Executive Editor

Prof S K TripathiDepartment of Water Resources Development and Management

IIT Roorki-247667 e-mailsankufwtgmailcom sankufwtiitrernetin

Coordinating EditorDr Arvind Kumar Srivsastava

Dept of Meteorology N D University of Agri and

TechFaizabad U PE arvindmausamgmailcom

I


Volume No 2 Issue No 1 2013

Co n t e n t sS No Title Page No

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19

Effect of Date of sowing Varieties and Irrigation Regimes on Pod Yield of Kharif Groundnut in Middle Gujarat Agro-Climatic ConditionS B Yadav H R Patel P Parmar BIKarande and V Pandey

5 22Effect Of Nitrogen Scheduling On Growth Yield And Quality Of Late Sown WheatAsheesh Kumar Pandey Ghanshyam Singh Suresh Kumar and Arvind Kumar

6 28

June - 2013

Fluoride Induced Biochemical Alterations In the Gills of Stinging Catfish Heteropneustes fossilis (Bloch)Sandeep Bajpai and Madhu Tripathi

7 34


amp Technology

Effect of foliar spray of different sources of potassium on fruiting yield and shelf-life of ber (Ziziphus mauritiana Lam) fruits cv ‟ Banarasi Karaka rdquoAmrish Srivastava SP Singh and Ajayendra Kumar

Toxic repellent and population suppressant activities of selected spice powders towards coleopteran beetles infesting stored grainsVeena P Swami Amrita Singh Ashok Kumar and Tabrez Ahmad

Effect of different levels of Nitrogen and Sulphur on yield yield attributes and quality of Rajmash (Phaseolus vulgaris L)KK Pandey HP Sharma and VN Pathak

Physico-chemical characteristics of calcareous soils in district Deoria and Gorakhpur of Eastern Uttar PradeshAKS Parihar Veerendra Dixit and Arvind Kumar Dr V N Pathak

Asstt Prof Deptt of GPBSMM Town College Ballia UP

E vijayanandpathak76gmailcom Dr Alok Kumar SinghDeptt of Crop Physiology















1 bullbull

Int J Agri Sci amp Tech Vol 2 (1) 2013 pp ISSN 2319 - 880X

Physico-chemical characteristics of calcareous soils in district Deoria and Gorakhpur of Eastern Uttar Pradesh

AKS Parihar Veerendra Dixit and Arvind Kumar

Department of Soil Science Department of Agricultural Meteorology Narendra Deva University of Agriculture and Technology

Kumarganj-Faizabad (UP) Indiae-mail arvindmausamgmailcom

(Date of Receipt 22-02-2013 Date of Acceptance for Publication 11-05-2013)

Abstract

Ʈhis paper describes certain soil properties of calcareous soils of two districts Gorakh-pur and Deoria of eastern part of Uttar Pradesh Soil pH ranged from 8 1 to 89 from 69 to 84 and 58 to 83 in Bhat Bangar and Kacchar soils respectively On comparison EC showed a reverse pattern with pH in these soils Bhat soil (Type I) has sandy loam to silt loam texture Bangar (Type II) shows silt clay amp sandy loam texture Kacchar soil Type (III) was is more similar in texture in the Bhat (Type I) available nitrogen of these soils may be placed in the ascending order Bhat (Type I) Bangar (Type II) and Kac-char (Type III) are richer in available phosphorus than Bhat (Type I) pH had highly sig-nificant negative relationship with available N P and K soil types I and II whereas the soil type III significant positive relationship with available N P and K EC had significant negative correlation with available N and P in soil type I whereas the soil type II EC had highly significant relationship with available N P and K Clay content has signifi-cant positive relationship with available N P and K in soil type I and II while in soil type III in a negative relationship

Keywords pH OC EC CaCO3 N P and K Pages 8 References 8

INTRODUCTIONBeginning with the popularisation of N some 30 years ago at least three nutrients (N P and K) have assumed large-scale practical importance for Indian Farmers N in its role and function in plant produc-tion is comparable to P in terms of over all crop needs and could be equated with K in terms of per unit cost In UP about 2 lakh hectares of land is calcareous dis-tributed in Gorakhpur and Deoria districts of eastern Uttar Pradesh These soils ad-

versely affect the growth and yield of crop plants due to adverse physico-chemical properties Calcareous soils of district De-oria and Gorakhpur are immature having alkaline pH and huge amount of fine free calcium carbonate Most of the plant nutri-ents applied through fertilizers react with calcium carbonate and form insoluble complexes and thus become unavailable to plants Calcareous soils are also known to prone iron deficiency This soil occur in the extreme north-eastern districts of Ut-

1-8

2 bullbull


tar Pradesh These calcareous soils are developed on the alluvium of the river Gandak which flows in the north-west to south-east direction from the Himalayas in to the river Ganga The main characters are the high content of calcium carbonate distributed throughout the depth of pro-files The texture of the soils varies from sandy loam and pH is mainly on the alka-line side These soils are zonal in charcter (Govindrajan and Gopala Rao 1978) The soils of districts Deoria and Gorakhpur are rather untouched in respect to systematic scientific study and very meagre informa-tion is available about characteristics of soils especially availability of plant nutri-ents in respect to physico-chemical char-acteristics No information is available about mineral nutrition of plants of these soils The present study aims to evaluate the physico-chemical properties of soils availability of nutrients in soils and avail-ability categories of available nutrients of soils MATERIALS AND METHOD

In Deoria and Gorakhpur three distinct Pedological types based on the lime dis-tribution have been recognized These are type-I calcium soil with a large amount of lime distributed throughout the profiles type-II leached calcium soils with a layer of calcium carbonate accumulation with in the profiles and type-III degraded cal-cium soils free of carbonates and show-ing the signs of unsaturated exchange complex These soils are locally known as Bhat Bangar and Kacchar soils respec-tively The climate of districts Gorakhpur and Deoria is entirely different from those of the districts in the western part of the state The average annual rainfall varies from 1250 to 1375 mm and the mean annual temperature from 24 to 25 0C To

evaluate the physico-chemical properties and available N P K and correlation coef-ficients (r) between N P K content in soils of different soil types of districts Deoria and Gorakhpur and some important phys-ico-chemical properti9es by using the for-mula as given by Chandel (1970) 100 sur-face soil samples from each soil types of districts Deoria and Gorakhpur were col-lected from different places Above experi-ment was carried out on districts Deoria and Gorakhpur in the year of 2003-2004 Initial surface soil samples (0-15cm) were collected with the help of khurpi randomly from different places on districts Deoria and Gorakhpur The soil samples were dried in air ground and sieved through 2 mm sieve and kept in polythene bags for laboratory analysis PH was measured in 125 soil water suspension by Buckman pH meter as described by Jackson (1973) and organic carbon was determined by Walkley and Black method EC was deter-mined with the help of conductivity bridge using 125 soil water suspension and described by Jackson (1973) and CaCO3 was determined by Bouyoucos hydrom-eter (Buoyoucos 1963) Available N was estimated by alkaline permagnate meth-od (Subbiah and Asiza 1957) and P was extracted by Olsenrsquos reagent (Olsen et al 1954) and determined calorimetrical-ly Available potash was estimated in the ammonium acetate extract of soil sam-ples by flamephotometer as described by (Jackson 1973)RESULT AND DISCUSSIONPhysico-chemical characteristics of dif-ferent types of soilsOne hundred surface soil samples were collected from different places of each soil type of district Deoria and Gorakh-pur and some important physico-chemi-

1-8

3 bullbull


cal characteristics of these soil samples were determined The range and average value of physico-chemical properties are presented in Table-1 pH soil ranged from 81 to 89 (average 85) from 69 to 84 (av-erage 782) and from 58 to 83 (average 713) in soil of type-I (Bhat) II (Bangar) and III (Kacchar) respectively Thus it is obvious that on an average soils of type I are alkaline in nature whereas the soils of type II and III are normal EC varied from 030 to 039 (average 034) from 034 to 071 (average 049) and from 130 to 179 (average 051) dSM-1 in soil type I II and III respectively EC values clearly indicate that there is no accumulation of soluble salts in these soils The data presented of table 1 exhibited that the contents of or-ganic carbon varied from 0405 to 0695 (with an average value of 0669) 0340 to 0820 (average of 0594) and from 0450 to 0820 (average of 0665 per cent) in soil of type I II and III respectively Thus it is obvious that soils of type III are compara-tively richer in organic carbon than soils I and II The contents of CaCO3 varied from 2415 to 3990 0-230 and from 0-15 per cent with the respective average values of 3090 112 and 0212 per cent in soils of type I II and III respectively Thus it is apparent that type I soils have huge re-serve of fine CaCO3 The data pertaining to mechanical components ie sand silt and clay are presented in Table I On the basis of values of these mechanical sepa-rates it was observed that texture of type I soils varied from sandy loam to silt loam type II soils from silty clay loam to sandy loam and type III soils from silty clay loam to loamy sand Available nutrients

The range and average values are pre-sented in Table 1 Available nitrogen

contents varied from 139 to 2105 (aver-age 18110) from 1792 to 2244 (average 20362) and from 19012 to 2451 (average 21965) kg ha-1 in soils type I II and III re-spectively On the basis of available nitro-gen these soils may be placed in the as-cending order Type I II and III Available phosphorus contents varied from 115 to 202 (average 169) 201 to 491 (average 3480) and 302 478 (average 416) kg ha-1 in the soils of type I II and III respec-tively Thus it is obvious that soils type II and III are richer in available phosphorus than soil type I Available potash contents ranged from 556 to 908 with an average value of 7246 from 7880 to 874 with an average value of 10157 and from 912 to 1256 with an average value of 1130 kg ha-1 in soils of type I II and III respective-ly Soil may be placed in the order type IIIgttype IIgt type I Data show that soils of type I II and III may be categorized cent pre cent in low range of available N K and medium in P On the basis of 10ppm available sulphur as critical limit (Tiwari et al 1983a) Correlation coefficients

The correlation coefficients (r) values giv-en in Table 2 to 4 show that pH had high-ly significant negative relationship with available NP and K in soil types I and II whereas the soil type III pH exhibited sig-nificant positive relationship with available N P and K In correlation studies it was observed that EC had significant negative correlation with available N and P in soil type I whereas the soil of type II EC had highly significant relationship with avail-able P and K in soil type I and II whereas the soil type III pH exhibited significant positive relationship with available N P and I It is due to the fact of CaCo3 content is maximum in soil type I and less in soil

1-8

4 bullbull


type II and III In correlation studies it was observed that EC had significant nega-tive correlation with available N and P in soil type I whereas the soil type II EC had highly significant relationship with availa-ble N P and K EC has significant positive relationship with available K in soil type III On examination the lsquorrsquo values given in Ta-bles 2 to 4 it is obvious that organic car-bon exhibited highly significant negative relationships with available N P and K in soil type I while in soil type II organic car-bon did not have significant relationships with available nutrients whereas the soil

of type III organic carbon showed signifi-cant positive relationships with available N P and K It is apparent from Table 2 to 4 CaCO3 show highly significant nega-tive relationships with available N P and K in soil type I and II whereas in case of soil type III CaCO3 showed non-significant relationship The correlation coefficients (Table 2 to 4) exhibit that clay content has significant positive relationships with available N P and K in soil type I and II while in soil type III clay contents showed significant negative relationships with available N P and K

1-8

5 bullbull


Table 2 Regression analysis between certain soil parameters and available nitrogen

One star denotes significant at 5 level Two stars denotes significant at 1 level Three stars denote significant at 01 level

1-8

6 bullbull


Table 3 Regression analysis between certain soil parameters and available phosphorus

1-8

7 bullbull


Table 4 Regression analysis between certain soil parameters and available potassium

1-8

8 bullbull


1 Bouyoucos GJ 1963 Direction for making mechanical analysis of soil by hydrometer method Soil Sci 42 225-228

2 Chandel SRS 1970 A hand book of Agricultural Statistics Achal Prakashan Mandir 117574 Panduna-gar Kanpur-5

3 Govindarajan SV and Gopala Rao HG 1978 In ldquoStudies on soils of In-diardquo Vikas Publishing House Pvt Led New Delhi pp 41-72

4 Jackson ML 1973 ldquoSoil ldquoChemical Analysisrdquo Prentice Hall of India Pri-vate Limited New Delhi

5 Olsen SR Cole CV Watanable FS and Deen LA 1954 Estimation of

REFERENCES available phosphorus soil by extrac-tion with sodium bicarbonate Cire US Deptt Agric 939 19

6 Subbaih DV and Asiza GL 1956 A rapid procedure for the estimation of available N in soils Curr Sci 25 259-260

7 Tiwari KN Vandana Nigam and Pathak AN 1983a Evaluation of some soils test method for diagnos-ing sulphur deficiency in rich in allu-vial soils of Uttar Pradesh J Indian Soc Soil Sci 31 245-249

8 Walkley A and Black IA 1934 An examination of Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter and a proposed modification of the chromic acid filtration method Soil Science 37 29-38

1-8

9 bullbull


Effect of different levels of Nitrogen and Sulphur on yield yield attributes and quality of Rajmash (Phaseolus vulgaris L)

KK Pandey1 HP Sharma2 and VN Pathak3

1 Assitt Prof Department of Agronomy SMM Town PG College Ballia UP2 Assoc Prof Department of Agronomy SDJ Post Graduate College Chandeshwar Azamgarh UP

3 Asstt Prof Department of Genetics amp Plant Breeding SMM Town PG College Ballia UP(Date of Receipt 06-01-2013 Date of Acceptance for Publication 05-05-2013)

Abstract

Aacute field study was undertaken to investigate the response of Rajmash to different levels of nitrogen (0 80 120 and 160 Kg ha-1) and sulphur (0 20 30 and 40 Kg ha-1) regarding yield yield attributes and quality In this investigation it was observed that application of 160 Kg N ha-1 alongwith 40 Kg sulphur ha-1 increased the seed yield (qha-1) yield attributes and quality of seeds as compared to other levels of nitrogen and sulphur in both the years The lowest yield and quality was noticed under no nitrogen and sul-phur applicationKeywords Rajmash nitrogen sulphur yield and quality

INTRODUCTION

Pages 4 References 7

Being a shy-nodulated crop its fertiliser requirement particularly of nitrogen is very high Due to poor nodulation Rajmash responds remarkably to the exter-nal application of fertiliser nitrogen The yield enhancement due to application of nitrogen is varies from place to place and variety to variety Sulphur is coming up as fourth nutrient to be supplied responding well in pulses Sulphur is being synergistic with nitrogen The interaction of N and S in field experiments have equally important Keeping these points in view the present study was undertaken response different levels of nitrogen and sulphur on yield yield attributes and quality of Rajmash

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The field trial was conducted at Agricultur-al Research farm of SDJ Post-Graduate College Chandeshwar Azamgarh UP in Rabi seasons of both the year The soil of the field was clay loam in texture and slightly alkaline in nature with medium fer-tility Four levels of nitrogen (0 80 120 160 Kg ha-1) and four levels of sulphur (0 20 30 40 Kg ha-1) making 16 treatment combina-tions were laid-out in Randomized Block Design with four replications The Raj-mash variety PDR-14 (Uday) was grown with spacing of 30x10 cm for the study P2O5 and K2O were applied uniformly 60 Kg ha-1 and 40 Kg ha-1 respectively to all the plots The crop was irrigated three

9-12

10 bullbull


RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

It is evident from the Table1 that nitrogen levels caused highly significant differenc-es in all the yield attributes seed yield and protein content of seeds during both the years The highest seed yield and protein content of seeds were observed under the effect of 160 Kg N ha-1 followed by 120 Kg N ha-1 in both the years The lowest seed yield and protein content of seeds was noticed under no nitrogen application during both the years The highest seed yield under 160 kg N ha-1 was mainly due to the higher pod length more number of pods per plant number of seeds per pod and 100 seed weight as compared to the remaining levels of nitrogen Application of higher dose of nitrogen pushed up the removal of nutrients and water from the soil by the crop which might have en-hanced the photosynthesis and translo-cation of assimilates from source to sink vis-a-vis seed yield and quality Similar trend in seed yield and quality have also been observed by Ali and Kushwaha (1987) Kushwaha (1994) Saxena and Verma (1995) and Singh etal (1998)

times at 25 50 and 75 days after sowing during both the years

Response to nitrogen

Response to sulphur Highly significant differences in seed yield yield attributes and quality were also observed due to different levels of sulphur application in both the years The highest seed yield and protein content of seeds were observed under the applica-tion of 40 Kg S ha-1 as compared to the re-maining levels of sulphur during both the years The lowest seed yield and protein content were recorded under no sulphur

application Higher seed yield and protein content of seeds under higher dose of sulphur have also been reported by Gup-ta (1991) and Singh (1994)

Interaction Effects

The interaction effects due to N x S were found to be significant in influencing seed yield (q ha-1) in second year and protein content of seeds in first year The higher seed yield and protein content of seeds were observed under N3 (160 Kg N ha-1) x S3 (40 Kg S ha-1) followed by N3 (160 Kg N ha-1) x S2 (30 Kg S ha-1) The higher rate of sulphur proved of significance in maxi-mum seed yield and protein content of seeds (Pasricha etal 1999)

REFERENCES

1 Ali M and Kushwaha BL 1987 Culti-vation of Rabi Rajmash in plains Indian Fmg 37 20-23

2 Gupta Sunil 1991 Fertiliser manage-ment in Rabi Rajmash (Phaseolus Vul-garis L) variety HUR-15 in Eastern UP PhD Thesis Department of Agrono-my IAS BHU Varanasi

3 Kushwaha BL 1994 Response of french bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) to nitrogen application in north Indian plains Indian J Agron 39 (1) 34-37

4 Pasricha NS Bahl GS Aulakh MS and Dhillon KS 1991 Fertiliser use research in oilseed and pulse crops in India Public Inf Div (ICAR) New Delhi 99

5 Saxena KK and Verma VS 1995 Ef-fect of Nitrogen Phoshorus and Potas-sium on the growth and yield of French

9-12

11 bullbull

Int J Agri Sci amp Tech Vol 2 (1) 2013 pp ISSN 2319 - 880XTa

ble

1 E

ffec

ts o

f Nitr

ogen

and

Sul

phur

leve

ls o

n yi

eld

yie

ld a

ttri

bute

s and

qua

lity

of R

ajm

ash

DA

S =

Day

s Aft

er S

owin

g9-12

12 bullbull


Table 2 (a) Interaction effects (N x S) on seed yield (qha) of Rajmash

S Em plusmn 011CD at 5 032

bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L) Indian J Agron 40 (2) 249-252

6 Singh Rajesh 1994 Effect of nitro-gen and sulphur application on the growth and yield of French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L) MSc (Ag) Thesis Department of Agronomy

IAS BHU Varansi

7 Singh MK Sharma HM and Mishra SS 1998 Effect of irrigation and ferti-liser application on growth yield and quality of Rabi Rajmash in north Bihar Indian J Pulses Res 11 (1) 109-111

9-12

13 bullbull


Effect of Date of sowing Varieties and Irrigation Regimes on Pod Yield of Kharif Groundnut in Middle Gujarat

Agro-Climatic Condition

S B Yadav H R Patel P Parmar BIKarande and V Pandey

Department of Agricultural MeteorologyAnand Agricultural University

Anand Gujarat ndash 388 110

E-mail sbmetyahooin(Date of Receipt 30-02-2013 Date of Acceptance for Publication 11-05-2013)

Abstract

Aacute field experiment was conducted at BA College of agriculture AAU Anand during the kharif season of 2009 The experiment was carried out in split plot design with two dates of sowings of two groundnut cultivars with two irrigation levels The results of field experiments revealed that pod and haulm yields as well as test weight and shelling percentage did not differ due to date of sowing Similarly growth and yield attributing parameters like weight of mature and immature pod per plant number of mature and immature pods per plant plant height and number of branches per plant were also not differed due to date of sowing The differences in pod yield and shelling percentage mature pod weight per plant were found significant due to varieties The irrigation treatment exerted non significant effect It might be due to well distributed rainfall received during the crop season

Keywords Dates of sowings Irrigation Regimes Pod Yield and Kharif Groundnut

INTRODUCTION Pages 6 References 4

Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L) is a legu-minous crop having the capability of fix-ing the atmospheric nitrogen through its root nodules It is the 13th most important food crop and 4th most important oilseed crop of the world India ranks first in re-spect of area China in production and USA in productivity Gujarat is the larg-

est producer of groundnut contributing 25 of the total production in whole In-dia Recently decrease in groundnut pro-duction in India is due to non-availability of sufficient irrigated water effect of pest - disease water logging drought etc The multiple uses of crop make it an excellent cash crop for domestic market as well as for foreign trade

13-18

14 bullbull



RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONThe differences in mean dry pod yield dur-ing crop growing season was found sta-tistically non-significant for date of sowing

The experiment was conducted dur-ing kharif season-2007 at the Agronomy Farm Department of Agronomy BACA AAU Anand (Gujarat) India situated at 22deg 35rsquo N latitude and 72deg 55rsquo E longitude and at an altitude of 451 m above mean sea level The average annual rainfall of Anand is 8396 mm Experiment was laid out in split plot design with two dates of sowing (viz D1 Onset of monsoon and D215 days after first sowing) with two ground nut cultivars (ie V1 Robut 33-1 V2 GG-2) and two irrigation levels (viz I0 no irrigation I1 irrigation at 50 depletion of available soil moisture)

The cultural operations at appropriate stages of crop were carried out In well prepared field groundnut seeds were subsequently dibbled manually in the lines at a soil depth of 5 cm The crop was uniformly fertilized with 125 + 25 + 00 kg NPK per ha Need based plant protec-tion measures were followed for termite control More or less crop remain pest and disease free Inter culturing by wheel hoe and two hand weeding were carried out during the crop growth period before pegging stage of the crop Periodic plant biometric observations at 15 days interval of the 3 plants had been recorded from random process Green leaf area was measured with the help of leaf area meter (LI-COR 3100) The green plants were up-rooted randomly and green leaves were separated and their area was measured The following equation was used for cal-culation of LAI (leaf area index) LAI =

)(cm area ground Total)(cm plants theof area leafgreen Total

2

2

The same plants uprooted for LAI meas-urement were used to record total dry matter The leaves stem root and pods were separated They were then dried in oven at 72degC for 24 hours till a constant weight was obtained Plant height was also recorded at harvesting Based on the observations on individual plants at al-ternate day interval occurrence of differ-ent phenological events viz Emergence flowering pegging podding seed initia-tion and harvesting were recorded The soil moisture content from each of the 0-15 15-30 and 30-45 cm soil depths was determined by gravimetric method at weekly interval Conversion of soil mois-ture into volumetric content was done us-ing the following formula

Moisture content = [(W1-W2)W2] x 100 x BD x ASi

Where W1=Weight of moist soil sam-ple (gm) W2=Weight of oven dry soil sample (gm) BD=Bulk density (gm cm-3) ASi=Depth of Ith soil layer (mm)

Pod yield of groundnut for each of the treatments under different replications from each of the net experimental plots was recorded by weighing the actual quantity of pods realized This weight was subsequently converted into the weight of the pods on a hectare basis after through sun drying After nipping the pods the haulm was subjected to sun drying for over a period of week till constant weight was obtained The same weight was then converted on a hectare basis

13-18

of

15 bullbull


might be due to the even distribution of rainfall over the whole crop growing peri-od in both of date of sowing but the treat-ment D1 (218284 kg ha-1) recorded the highest pod yield as compared to treat-ments D2 (186495 kg ha-1) Treatment D1 recorded 8 more yield as compared to treatment D2 (Patel et al 1986) The sta-tistical comparison of the results of pod yield revealed that differences in yield due to differences in the variety were found statistically significant Patil et al (1993) Raichur (Karnataka) observed that the yields were decreased due to delay in sowing dates The cultivar V1 (Robut 33-1) produced (237221 kg ha-1) higher yield as compare to V2 (167557 kg ha-1) and it was 17 higher as compared to V2 Re-sults of pod yield in response to both ir-rigation treatments showed statistically non-significant differences in yield due to because of good rainfall distribution dur-ing crop growing season The differenc-es in the haulm yield for dates varieties and irrigation treatment were found non-significant This might be due to well dis-tributed rainfall received during the crop growing season Highest mean haulm yield (5140 kg ha-1) was recorded in D1 sowing followed by D2(4840 kg ha-1) sim-ilar as Sahu et al (2004)

The statistical comparison of the results of haulm yield found higher in V2 (5010 kg ha-1) followed by V1 (4970 kg ha-1) treat-ment The statistical comparison of the test weight (gm) was found significant for date of sowing and varieties but was found non-significant for irrigation treat-ment Test weight was found significantly higher in D1 (3294 gm) followed by D2 (3151 gm) and for V1 (3363 gm) followed by V2 (3151 gm) The differences in shell-ing percentage was found statistically

non-significant for date of sowing but the treatment D1 (6983 ) recorded the slightly higher shelling percentage than treatments D2 (6971 )

The statistical comparison of the results revealed that differences in shelling per-centage due to differences in the variety were found statistically significant and higher shelling percentage was observed in treatment V2 (7123 ) as compare to treatment V1 (6831 ) Shelling percent-age in response to irrigation treatments showed statistically non-significant results but I0 treatment (7047) obtained slightly higher shelling percentage as compare to I1 (6907 ) The experimental results per-taining to number of immature pods ma-ture pods number of branches per plant and plant height as influenced by different dates of sowing varieties and irrigation regimes are presented in the Table 42 The differences in the number of imma-ture pods for dates varieties and irriga-tion treatment were found non-significant Highest mean number of immature pods (808) was recorded in D2 sowing followed by D1 (643) In case of varieties number of immature pods found higher in V1 (794) as compared to V2 (656) treatment

The number of immature pods was found higher (730) in I0 as compared to I1 (720) treatment The differences in the number of mature pods for dates varieties and for irrigation treatment were found non-sig-nificant Higher mean number of mature pods (1523) was recorded in D2 sowing as compared to D1 (1303) treatment Higher mature pods were found in V1 (1455) as compared to V2 (1370) treatment In case of irrigation treatment I0 treatment had higher (1443) mature pods as compare to I1 (1383) treatment The differences in

13-18

16 bullbull


Table 1 Effect of dates of sowing variety and irrigation levels on pod yield haulm yield test weight and shelling percentage on groundnut

13-18

17 bullbull


Table 2 Effect of dates of sowing variety and irrigation levels on number of immature and mature pods number of branchesplant and plant height on groundnut

13-18

18 bullbull


1 (httpdacnetnicineands)

2 Patil MP Rao MR Wali BM Kala-ghatagi SB and Palled YB 1993Re-sponse of groundnut cultivars to sow-ing time under rainfed conditions Kar J of Agri Sci6 (4) 398-400

3 Patel MP Oungarani RA Patel HC Patel RG and Patel RB 1986 Re-sponse of groundnut cultivars to differ-ent dates of sowing under rainfed con-ditions Indian J Agron 31 (3) 285-288

4 Sahu DD Golakiya BA and Patoliya BM 2004 Impact of rainfall on the yield of rainfed groundnut J of Agro-meteorology 6(2)153-161

CONCLUSION

Hence a more pragmatic approach had to be followed in this respect On the ba-sis of the results of the individual treat-ments on yield and yield attributes it was ascertained through visual scrutiny that the treatment combination D1V1 could be reckoned as the most effective and was accepted and adopted accordingly but here irrigation treatment is not included because due to well distributed of rainfall and hence irrigation treatment was not found beneficial

REFERENCES

number of branches per plant was found statistically non-significant for date of sowing but the treatment D2 recorded the higher (646) number of branches per plant as compared to treatments D1 (615) The result of number of branches per plant due to differences in the varie-ty was found statistically significant The more number of branches (699) was recorded in V1 as compared to V2 (563) treatments The number of branches per plant in respect of irrigation treatments showed non-significant differences but I1 treatment (655) produced more num-ber of branches per plant as compare to I0 (605) The differences in plant height were found statistically non-significant due to date of sowing however D1 re-corded (7498 cm) higher plant height as compared to D2 (6449 cm) treatmentThe plant height due to differences in the variety were statistically found significant and maximum plant height was observed in treatment V2 (7498 cm) as compare to V1 (6449 cm) treatment Irrigation treat-ments showed statistically non-significant results but I1 recorded (7106 cm) slightly higher plant height as compared to I0 (6840 cm) treatment It was mentioned earlier that the fundamental objective be-hind the conduct of this field experiment was to determine agro-gnomically the best combination of the treatments involv-ing dates of sowing varieties and irriga-tion regimes contributing to higher yield all the treatments in combination being assumed to provide to the crop a specific environmental situation Thus the task of

ascertaining the most effective combina-tion of treatments became quite complex and the objective could not be attained on statistical basis

13-18

19 bullbull


Effect of foliar spray of different sources of potassium on fruiting yield and shelf-life of ber (Ziziphus mauritiana Lam)

fruits cv ‟ Banarasi Karaka rdquo

Amrish Srivastava1 SP Singh2 and Ajayendra Kumar3

1 amp2 Department of Horticulture Banaras Hindu University of Agriculture and Technology Varanasi (UP) India 3Chaudhary Charan Singh Degree College Bardari Barabanki

Email amrish23octindiacom(Date of Receipt 23-03-2012 Date of Acceptance for Publication 24-05-2013)

Abstract

Aacuten experiment was conducted in randomised block design with ten treatments and three replications at Horticultural Experiment farm Banaras Hindu University Vara-nasi (UP) to study the effect of foliar spray of different sources of potassium on fruit-ing yield and shelf-life of ber fruits The results revealed that foliar spray of KN03 (2) proved most effective in reducing fruit drop increasing fruit retention and fruit yield with improved shelf-life of fruits

Keywords Foliar spray Potassium Ziziphus mauritiara Lam Ber


Ber is an ancient and important fruit of India The area and production of ber in India have been estimated to the tune of 61279 ha and 3797606 million tonnes respectively(Bose etal 2002) It is a hardy tree which can be cultivated successfully under the most unfavourable condition of soil moisture and climate It is a good source of vitamin lsquoArsquo lsquoBrsquo and lsquoCrsquo Its fruit is richer than that of apple in protein phos-phorus calcium carotene and vitamin lsquoCrsquo contents ( Bakhshi and Singh 1974) The foliar application of nutrients is compara-tively more effective than soil application The beneficial effect of foliar application of nutrients is based on the fact that nu-trients reach directly to the leaves which are site of metabolism However rate of

nutrients absorption depend on various factors like environmental factors (tem-perature humidity solar radiation etc) chemical and physical properties of the nutrient spray leaf characters etc Consid-ering these facts in mind a study was car-ried out to assess the effect of foliar spray of different sources of potassium on fruit-ing yield and shelf-life of ber fruits


Twenty years old average yielding ber trees of ‟Banarasi Karakardquo were select-ed for the study at Horticultural Research Farm Institute of Agricultural Sciences Banaras Hindu University Varanasi The experimental soil had 0117 nitrogen 0082 phosphorus (P205) 0541 pot-ash 1116 organic carbon 72 pH and

19-21

20 bullbull



Data revealed that fruit retention and

072 dsm-1 electrical conductivity The ex-periment was conducted in RBD with ten treatments and three replications The treatments comprised T1 control (water spray) T2 K2SO4(05 ) T3 K2SO4 (10 ) T4 K2SO4 (20 ) T5 KCl (05 ) T6 KCl (10 ) T7 KCl (2 ) T8 KNO3(05 ) T9 KNO3(10 ) and T10 KNO3(20 ) The spraying was done twice ie 20 Novem-ber and 20 January using Teepol as a sur-factant 05 mllitre The retention of fruit was determined by counting the number of flowers retained in form of fruit on the tagged branches all round the tree re-corded at the time of harvesting To study the fruit drop 200 flowers were tagged in all the four directions of plant canopy at the time of flowering Percent fruit drop was calculated with the help of following formula-Fruit drop () = Number of flowers tagged at initial stage ndash Number of fruit retained on the shoot at harvesting Num-ber of flowers tagged at initial stageFruit yield was worked out by summing the weight of fruits at every harvest For determining the shelf-life of fruits 20 fruits for each treatment were packed in per-forated polythene bags and replicated thrice The bags were stored at an ambi-ent temperature (176 + 2 0C) and obser-vations were recorded at 36 and 9 days after storage for physiological weight loss and decay loss The data obtained were statistically analysed according to the methods suggested by Panse and Sukhatme (1985)

fruit drop was greatly influenced by foliar spray of different sources of potassium (Table 1) Among the different sources of potassium KNO3 (2) was found supe-rior for retaining the maximum number of fruits (4154) per branch The fruit reten-tion was lowest (3417) under control (T1) However treatment T4 was at par with T9 in this regard Data pertaining to fruit drop revealed that it was minimum (4845) under T10 KNO3 (2 ) while it was maximum (5561 ) under T1 (con-trol) However treatment T2 and T6 T4 and T3 and T3 and T8 were at par in this as-pect These findings are in line with the findings of Sharma etal (1990) in mango The higher fruit drop might have been due to deficiency of nutrients Besides it other factors like fungal diseases particularly powdery mildew (Mehta 1950) attack of insect-pest etc may be responsible for higher fruit drop which is directly associ-ated with fruit retention

Fruit retention and fruit drop

Yield Attributes and YieldData presented in Table1 clearly indicated that yield attributes and yield were affect-ed significantly by different sources of po-tassium The maximum fruit size in terms of length (486 cm) and breadth (342 cm) weight (2023 g) and yield (3770 Kgtree) were observed under treatment T10 (KNO3 2) followed by treatment T9 T8 and T4 while these were minimum in treatment T1 (control) The treatment T10 was signifi-cantly superior over all other treatments in respect of yield attributes and yieldThe treatment T3 and T7 and T4 and T8 were at par in respect of fruit size and treatment T2 and T5 and T3 T6 and T7 were at par in re-spect of fruit yield The involvement of ni-trogen directly in growth and those of po-tassium indirectly through translocation of food material might be one of the rea-

19-21

21 bullbull


sons for increased size and weight of fruit which results in significantly increased fruit yield over control These results are in close conformity with the findings of Singh etal(1981) for yield attributes and of Singh and Singh (1975) for fruit yieldShelf-lifeThe foliar spray of different sources of po-tassium significantly minimized the physi-ological weight loss and decay loss over control The lowest physiological weight loss (497 ) was recorded with KNO3 (2 ) while it was highest (546 ) under control (T1) Treatment T4 and T9 and T3 T7 and T8 were at par in respect of physi-ological weight loss Physiological weight loss increased with the increased in num-ber of days of storage The highest physi-ological weight loss was recorded after 9 day of storage whereas it was minimum after 3 day of storage These results are in close conformity with the results of Gupta and Mehta (1988) in ber

Decay loss was also significantly reduced by foliar spray of different sources of po-tassium over control (Table1) The mini-mum decay loss (50) was noticed with T10 followed by T3 (667) and T9(722) The highest decay loss (1499) was re-corded under control (T1) on 9th day of storage The intereaction effect of treat-ment was also found significant in respect of decay loss These results corroborate the findings of Gupta etal (1989) and Sid-diquie etal (1989) in berSummaryFoliar spray of different sources of po-tassium significantly reduced fruit drop increased fruit retention and yield and improved shelf life of ber fruits However KNO3 2 (T10) was found superior over all other treatments and may be recom-

mended for its commercial application at growers fieldREFERENCES1 Bakhshi JC and Singh P 1974 The

ber a good choice for semi-arid and marginal soil Indian hort 1927-30

2 Bose TK Mitra SK and Sanyal D 2000 Fruits Tropical and Sub-tropical 3rd edn

3 Gupta OP and MehtaN 1988 Effect of postharvest application of chemicals on the shelf-life of ber fruits cv Gola Haryana J Hort Sci 17(3-4) 183-189

4 Gupta OP Siddiquie S and Gupta AK 1989 Effect of pre-harvest spray of various chemicals on the storage of ber fruits Res Dev Reporter 6 (1) 35-40

5 Mehta PR 1950 Pt Prot Bull New Delhi 250-51

6 Panse VG and Sukhatme PV 1985 Statistical methods for Agricultural Workers 4th edn ICAR New Delhi pp 59-62

7 Sharma VP Raju PV and Kore VN 1990 Anna Agri Res 1114-20

8 Siddiquie S Gupta OP and YamdagniR 1989 Effect of pre-har-vest spray of chemicals on the shelf-life of ber fruits cv Umran Haryana JHort Sci 18(3-3 177-178)

9 Singh HK Singh BP and Chauhan KS 1981 Effect of foliar feeding of var-ious chemicals on physico-chemical quality of gvava fruits J Res Hisar Agri Uni 11411-414

10 Singh RP and Singh AR 1975 Hort Adv 97-10

19-21

22 bullbull


Effect Of Nitrogen Scheduling On Growth Yield And Quality Of Late Sown Wheat

Asheesh Kumar Pandey R S Kureel Bhagwan Singh H P Tripathi Ghanshyam Singh Suresh Kumar and Arvind Kumar

Department of Agronomy Vice-ChancellorDepartment of Soil Science Department of Agricultural Mete-orology Narendra Deva University of Agriculture amp Technology Kumarganj Faizabad (UP) 224 229

email arvindmausamgmailcom(Date of Receipt 22-02-2013 Date of Acceptance for Publication 17-05-2013)

Abstract

Ʈhe study was conducted at the Agronomy Research Farm of Narendra Deva Uni-versity of Agriculture and Technology Kumarganj Faizabad (UP) during rabi season of 2008-09 to evaluate the nitrogen doses and nitrogen scheduling for better growth yield quality of wheat The treatments were laid out in randomized block design with 4 replications on silt loam having low organic (030) nitrogen (203) medium in phos-phorus (1525) and (265) kg ha-1 All the growth and yield attributes increased signifi-cantly with increasing nitrogen doses up to 150 kgha-1 Application of every dose of nitrogen showed significant superiority over 100 N kgha-1 and control Grain as well as straw yield increased with increase in nitrogen dose recording maximum yields of 3613 qha-1 and 5489 qha-1 of grain and straw yield with 150 kgha-1 respectively The growth character like plant height was significantly maximum under frac14 basal + 45 at Ist irrigation + frac14 at flowering + 5 at milk stage foliar being at par with T5 T4 and T3 and nitrogen scheduling were significantly superior over T1 and T2 The nitrogen scheduling had significant effect on nutrient uptake by nutrient uptake 11931 kg N 2223 kg P and 105 kg Kha-1 crop recording significantly higher 11931 kgNha-1 under frac14 basal + 45 at Ist irrigation + frac14 at flowering + 5 at milk stage foliar being at par with T5 and T4 and significantly higher than rest of treatments The yield components like effective tillers m-1 row length spike length (cm) number of grain spike-1 grain and straw yield of wheat qha-1 and NPK uptake by crop were maximum under T6 and at par with T5 T4 were significantly over T3 T2 and T1 Keywords nitrogen doses and nitrogen scheduling randomized block design


INTRODUCTIONWheat is one of the most important cereal crops of the world that has been consid-ered as integral component of food se-curity Average yield of wheat under late sown condition is poor due to less exploi-

tation of potentially of the crop Reduction in yield is caused due to delayed emer-gence of seedling Delayed emergence of crop and premature drying due to high temperature and hot desiccating winds during grain filling stage caused the

22-27

23 bullbull


forced maturity of late sown crop which ultimately results in heavy reduction in biomass

Among the major elements nitrogen is most important because most of the In-dian soils are deficient in this element Nitrogen governs considerable degree to the utilization of phosphorus and potas-sium The presence of optimum amount of readily available nitrogen in the soil fer-tility status leading to the successful crop production The response of nitrogen de-pends upon not only its optimum time but also upon the proper methods of its ap-plication The maximum benefit from the use of nitrogenous fertilizers can be ob-tained If it is applied in such away that it could be made available to the plants at critical stages in sufficient quantity

In fact to get maximum benefit and re-sponse from the fertilizers use it should be applied i) in correct dose ii) at the right time and iii) by the proper method as timely nitrogen application is one of the technique which has helped increasing nitrogen use efficiency

Application of recommended dose of the fertilizer in two or three splits during crop period has been found more effec-tive over single application Nitrogen very rapidly losses in the soil due to leaching denitrification volatilization and surface runoff and reduces the nitrogen use Thus the use of suitable doses with split appli-cation of nitrogen may play important role in minimizing the present gap in yield

The filed experiment was conducted at the Agronomy Research Farm of Naren-dra Deva University of Agriculture and

RESULT AND DISCUSSIONGrowth attributes

The number of shoot running meter-1 was increased significantly by nitrogen dose The maximum number of shoots was re-corded under 150 kg Nha-1 at 90 days af-ter sowing This may be due to fact that sufficient supply of nitrogen increased absorption of nutrient from soil and ena-


Technology Kumarganj Faizabad (UP) during rabi season of 2008-09 The treat-ments were laid out in randomized block design with 4 replications Thirteen treat-ments viz Nitrogen dose 0 100 and 150 kgha-1 and Nitrogen Scheduling bull frac12 Basal + frac12 at Ist irrigation bull 13 basal + 13 at Ist irrigation + 13 at

flowering bull frac14 basal + frac12 at Ist irrigation + frac14 at flow-

eringbull 45 basal + frac12at Ist irrigation + 5 at

flowering (foliar) bull 13 basal + 13 at Ist irrigation + 28

flowering + 50 at milk stage (foliar) bull frac14 basal + 45 at Ist irrigation + frac14 at

flowering + 5 at milk stage (foliar) were comprised for nitrogen dose and scheduling along with control The vari-ety of wheat UP2425 was taken as test The experimental soil was Silt loam with Bulk density 141 gcc pH (125) 856 EC 021 dSm-1 N 203 P 1525 K 265 Kgha-1 and Zinc 048 ppm An uni-form dose of 60 kg P2O5 ha-1 through single super phosphate and 40 Kg K2O ha-1 through muriate of potash and 25 kg zinc sulphate ha-1 was applied at the time of sowing as basal dose The nitrogen was applied as per treatment Soil and plants were analyzed as per standard method described by Jack-son 1973

22-27

24 bullbull


bled plants for profuse tillering which enhanced shoot m-1 as well as reduced mortality of tillers

At 60 DAS and 90 DAS the number of shoot running meter -1 was recorded sig-nificantly higher in T6 (14 basal+ 45 at Ist irrigation + frac14 at flowering + 5 at milk stage foliar Which was at par with T4 and T5 but significantly better than rest of the treatments The maximum plant height was record-ed under 150 kg Nha-1 which was sig-nificantly better than 100 kg Nha-1 and control and at all the crop growth stages Plant height was affected significantly due to nitrogen scheduling at all the stag-es except 30DAS The tallest plants were recorded in T6 (14 basal+ 45 at Ist irri-gation + frac14 at flowering + 5 at milk stage foliar) which was at par with T4 and T5 and significantly taller as compared to rest of the treatmentsYield and yield attributes There was significant increase in all the yield attributes viz effective tiller m-1 spike length and grain spike-1 with increase in doses from 0 to 150 kg Nha-1 recording highest values at was lesser 150 kg Nha-1 All the attributes also increased signifi-cantly with increase in nitrogen splits Highest values of all the yield attributes were recorded under T6 (14 basal+ 45 at 1st irrigation + frac14 at flowering + 5 at milk stage foliar) which were at par with T4 and T5 where scheduling was done in four splits and all were superior 2 splits (T1) Similar results were also reported by Agrawal and Moolani 1978

The maximum grain and straw yield was recorded under 150 kg Nha-1 which was

significantly higher over 100 kg Nha-1 and control

Grains and straw yield was significantly influenced by nitrogen scheduling High-est grain (3543) and straw (5233) yield qha-1 was obtained under T6 (14 basal+ 45 at Ist irrigation + frac14 at flowering + 5 at milk stage foliar) which was at par with T5 and T4 but significantly higher than rest of the treatment This is mainly due to better vegetative growth caused efficient assim-ilation and absorption nitrogen from the soil which increases the yield The find-ings are in agreement with those of Ram et al (2005) and Kachroo and Razadan (2006) Quality and UptakeProtein content in grain was greatly influ-enced by nitrogen dose and its schedul-ing The maximum protein content was recorded with 150 kg Nha-1 sowing its sig-nificantly superior over 100 kg Nha-1 Simi-lar results were also reported by Nakhtore and Kewat (1989) The nitrogen schedul-ing had significant effect on protein con-tent in grain The maximum protein con-tent of 1280 per cent was recorded T6 (14 basal+ 45 at lst irrigation + frac14 at flowering + 5 at milk stage foliar) which was 156 per cent higher than T1Tomar (1977) and Akhun (1982) had also reported increase in protein content with splits in compari-son to basal or two splits

The N P and K uptake also influenced by higher dose of nitrogen 150 kg ha-1 and nitrogen scheduling Significant higher uptake was recorded under T6 (14 ba-sal+ 45 at lst irrigation + frac14 at flowering + 5 at milk stage foliar) as compared to rest of the treatment except T4 and T5 The results are in close conformity to those of

22-27

25 bullbull


Table 1 Effect of nitrogen doses and scheduling on yield and yield attributes

22-27

26 bullbull


Table 2 Effect of nitrogen doses and its scheduling on protein content and nutrient

22-27

27 bullbull


Dhuka et al (1992)

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

A dose of 150 kg Nha-1 seems to be suit-able dose for better growth yield and quality of late sown wheat Application of nitrogen in four splits i e (14 basal+ 45 at Ist irrigation + frac14 at flowering + 5 at milk stage foliar) is the best schedule of nitro-gen application in late sown wheat Thus it may be concluded that for better yield and return from late sown wheat nitro-gen may be applied 150 kg Nha-1 in four splits i e 14 basal+ 45 at Ist irrigation + frac14 at flowering + 5 at milk stage foliar

REFERENCES

1 AgarwalSKand MoolaniMK 1978Effect of ratestime and method of ni-trogen application on dwarf wheatIn-dian JAgro23 (1)53-54

2 AkhumDeo FG 1982Effect of date of nitrogen fertilizer on grain yield and quality of wither wheat in west-ern zone of the AzerbaijianSSRField Crop Absi35(2)981

3 DhukaAK SadariaSG PatelJGand

PatelBS 1992 Effect of rate and time of N application on late sown wheatIndian JAgron37(2) 354-55

4 JacksonML(1973)Soil Chemical analysis such edn Prentice Hall of IndiaPvt LtdNew Delhi

5 KachrooDand RazdanR 2006Growth nutrient uptake and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum) as influ-enced by bio-fertilizers and nitrogenIndian JAgron15(1)37-39

6 NakhtoreCLand KewatML 1989Response of dwarf wheat to vary-ing fertility levels under limited and adequate irrigation conditionsIndian JAgron34(4)508-509

7 RamTYadavSKand SheoranRS 2005Growth analysis of wheat under varying fertility levels and Azotobacter strainsIndian Journal of Agricultural re-search 39 (40295-298)

8 TomarSS 1977 To study the effect of different seed and nitrogen levels on growthyield and quality of wheat va-riety RR-21Under the late sown cond Of GwaliorField Crop Abst33(11)8358

22-27

28 bullbull


Fluoride Induced Biochemical Alterations In the Gills of Sting-ing Catfish Heteropneustes fossilis (Bloch)

Sandeep Bajpai and Madhu Tripathi

Aquatic Toxicology Research Laboratory Department of ZoologyUniversity of Lucknow Lucknow-226 007 (UP) India

E-mail drsbajpai10gmailcom(Date of Receipt 28-11-2012 Date of Acceptance for Publication 21-03-2013)

Abstract

Nature gives life to everything by means of water Natural water sources are often con-taminated by partially treated or untreated wastes of industrial and agricultural origin containing various hazardous pollutants Among them fluoride (F-) has been emerged as one of the major pollutant It is a persistent bioaccumulator that accumulates in the visceral organs of animals including fish Elevated level of fluoride has been reported to disturb the metabolic activity that is interlinked with the structural integrity of cells and tissues and alters normal biochemical profile of the exposed organisms In view of this the present study has been designed to investigate the effect of fluoride on differ-ent biochemical constituents such as protein lipid glycogen and cholesterol in gills of Heteropneustes fossilis a popular edible freshwater catfish of India The fish were divided into three groups having 15 fish in each Group I (without any treatment) maintained in dechlorinated tap water served as control whereas group II and III were exposed to 35 mgFL and 70 mgFL respectively After 60 days of exposure the levels of biochemical constituents in gill tissue were analyzed following standard protocols Exposure of fish to different sub-lethal concentrations revealed lsquoconcentration dependentrsquo depletion in the biochemical constituents of gills in comparison to control The possible reasons for depletion of biochemical contents after fluoride exposure have also been discussed

Keywords Fluoride sub-lethal toxicity Heteropneustes fossilis biochemical changes


Increasing environmental pollution is the most burning issue of this era affect-ing all living organisms and deteriorat-ing natural resources (Arner et al 2009) The rapid industrialization and globaliza-tion is responsible to introduce wide va-riety of chemicals into the environment Aquatic bodies are not an exception and

are getting severely polluted as a result of anthropogenic additions arising from in-dustrial and municipal effluent discharges containing toxic substances (Beg and Ali 2008) These toxicants are injurious to non target aquatic organisms including fishes being the largest and most diverse group in aquatic ecosystem They are sensi-tive to even minute changes in the water

28-33

29 bullbull


quality caused by xenobiotics therefore act as perfect bioindicator for aquatic tox-icity studies Since gills are permanently exposed to the contaminated media they act as a perfect target site for toxicant ab-sorption and accumulation (Herger et al 1995 Bajpai et al 2011) Accumulation of toxicants in tissues promotes many physiological and biochemical alterations in fishes (Nagarathnamma and Rama-murthi 1982 Kumar et al 2007a Logas-wamy and Remia 2009) influencing the normal activity of enzymes and metabo-lites

Among these toxicants fluoride has been reported as a persistent bioaccumulator that accumulates in visceral organs of fish interfering with their normal function-ing (Bhatnagar et al 2007 Kumar et al 2007b Bajpai and Tripathi 2010) Since fluoride affects visceral organs in fishes causing visceral toxicity gills being the primary target organ might also be affect-ed In view of above facts the study has been designed to investigate the effect of sub-lethal exposure of fluoride on vari-ous biochemical constituents in gills of catfish Heteropneustes fossilis a popular edible and highly cultivated freshwater fish of India


Healthy specimens of H fossilis (average size 1409plusmn020 cm and weight 1204plusmn030 gm) were procured from nearby areas of Lucknow city and were acclimated in dechlorinated and well aerated water for about 15 days in standard laboratory con-ditions Twelve hours photoperiod was maintained throughout the experiment During acclimatization they were fed on alternate days with dried prawn pieces followed by the change of aquaria water to avoid contamination The toxicant used was Sodium Fluoride NaF obtained from Qualigens Fine Chemicals Limited Mum-bai India A stock solution was prepared by dissolving weighed amount of toxi-cant in double distilled water which was further diluted according to the desired concentration with chlorine free water The fish were divided into three groups having 15 fish (either sex) in each Group I served as control (maintained without any treatment) whereas group II and III were exposed to different sub-lethal con-centrations (35 mgFL and 70 mgFL) re-spectively for 60 days

At the end of exposure ie after 60 days fishes from both control and experimental

Table-1 Effect of fluoride on biochemical contents (mgg) in gills of H fossilis after 60 days exposure

28-33

30 bullbull



The exposure of fish to different sub-lethal concentrations of fluoride showed deple-tion in protein contents in the gills (-1944 to -3301) after 60 days as compared to control group The lipid contents were also decreased (-319 to -858) during chronic fluoride exposure Similarly con-centration dependent decrease in gly-cogen content (-1395 to -7760) was observed as a result of sub-lethal expo-sure Cholesterol level was also found to be decreased (-3169 to -6764) in both the concentrations after sub-lethal expo-sure The results obtained in the study are shown in table and figure1 The gill is major target organ because it remains in direct contact with the contaminated medium resulting in absorption and ac-cumulation of the toxicant It has been reported that aquatic pollutants damage the fish gills by causing breakdown of the gaseous exchange mechanism with consequent tissue hypotoxic conditions (Khan and Singh 2002)

Concentration dependent decrease in protein lipid glycogen and cholesterol in gills of H fossilis after sub-lethal expo-sure to fluoride indicates adverse effects of fluoride on biochemical profile Under

groups were sacrificed for sampling Gills were carefully dissected out and subject-ed to biochemical estimations The bio-chemical contents were analyzed by fol-lowing standard methods Protein content was estimated by Folin phenol reagent method (Lowry et al 1951) lipid (Folch et al 1957) glycogen (Montgomery 1957) and Cholesterol by the method of Rosen-thal et al (1957) The results were repli-cated thrice and the data obtained was analyzed by Studentrsquos t test

stress condition many organisms mobi-lize proteins as an energy source through oxidation of amino acids The depletion in protein level observed here may be due to its stress mediated mobilization to ful-fill the increased demands for energy by fish to cope up with environmental stress after exposure (Bajpai and Tripathi 2010) The decrease in protein level may also be due to conversion of proteins into muco-proteins secreted in the form of mucous as a protective mechanism against toxic stress It may also be due to impairment of protein synthesis or increase in the rate of its degradation into amino acid which may be fed to TCA cycle through enzyme aminotransferase to combat with the high energy demands Decrease in protein content after toxicant stress has already been reported by many workers (Borah and Yadav 1995 Susan et al 1999 Khare and Singh 2002 Kumar et al 2007ab)

Lipids also have major role in metabolic activities of animals because they are source of energy and are involved in build-ing of cellular components Significant depletion in lipid after fluoride exposure in gills of the exposed fish in this study can be associated with the inhibition of lipid synthesis by fluoride or excess utilization of stored lipids for instant energy to over-come toxic stress (Vutukuru 2003 Kumar et al 2007ab) Reduction in lipid content in present study may also be due to inac-tivation of enzymes and hormones which regulate its synthesis on one hand and on the other by increasing its utilization in cell repair tissue re-organization and high energy demands during stressful situa-tion Similar observations have also been reported by Bajpai and Tripathi (2011) in fingerlings of H fossilis after fluoride ex-posure

28-33

31 bullbull


Figure-1 Effect of fluoride on biochemical contents (mgg) in gills of H fossilis after 60 days exposure

Depletion in the glycogen content in gills of the exposed fish indicates its rapid uti-lization to meet the enhanced energy demands under fluoride toxicity It may also due to hypoxic or anoxic conditions which increases the glycogen utilization (Dezwaan and Zandee 1973) During hy-poxic conditions the animal derives en-ergy from anaerobic breakdown of glu-cose which is available to the cells by increasing the process of glycogenolysis The decline in glycogen might be due to the formation and utilization of glycopro-teins and glycolipids which are essential components of cells (Vutukuru 2005) Thus during such type of stress the gly-cogen reserves are used to meet energy demands

Cholesterol is regarded as the major source for steroidogenesis during matu-ration and spawning periods (Bhattacha-rya 1981) The depletion of cholesterol in this study may be due to blockage of en-zyme system for steroidogenesis It may also be due to inhibition of cholesterol

biosynthesis or due to reduced absorp-tion of dietary cholesterol (Kanagaraj et al 1993) Shakoori et al (1996) reported that the cholesterol depletion may be due to utilization of fatty deposits instead of glucose for energy to fight against toxic stress Similar findings have also been reported by Remia et al (2008) who re-ported decrease in cholesterol content in the gills of Tilapia mossambica under monocrotophos stress

The present investigation revealed signifi-cant depletion in protein lipid glycogen and cholesterol level in gills of H fos-silis after exposure to different sub-lethal concentrations of fluoride Thus it can be concluded that fluoride can alter the nor-mal biochemical profile of gills which can cause impairment in its normal function-ing and can be one of the major reason for economic loss during aquaculture Since elevated level of fluoride is responsible for these alterations in fishes safe levels are recommended in order to protect them from fluoride pollution

28-33

32 bullbull


REFERENCES

1 Arner J Vila P and Plautz CZ 2009 Effects of local water contaminants on the development of aquatic organ-isms Sujur 1 12-26

2 Bajpai S and Tripathi M 2010 Effect of fluoride on growth bioindicators in stinging catfish Heteropneustes fos-silis (Bloch) Fluoride 43(4) 232-236

3 Bajpai S and Tripathi M 2011 deple-tion of growth biomolecules in finger-lings of catfish Heteropneustes fossilis (Bloch) after exposure to fluoride Aq-uacult 12(1) 133-140

4 Bajpai S Tiwari S and Tripathi M 2011 Impact of fluoride on structur-al changes in gills of Indian catfish Heteropneustes fossilis (Bloch) after acute exposure Trends in Biosciences 4(2) 165-168

5 Beg KR and Ali S 2008 Chemical contaminants and toxicity of Ganga river sediment from up and down stream area at Kanpur Amer J Environ Sci 4(4) 362-366

6 Bhatnagar C Bhatnagar M and Re-gar BC 2007 Fluoride induced his-topathological changes in gill kidney and intestine of freshwater teleost La-beo rohita Fluoride 40(1) 55-61

7 Borah S and Yadav RNS 1995 Al-teration in the protein free amino acid

nucleic acid and carbohydrate content of muscles and gills in rogor exposed freshwater fish Heteropneustes fossil-is Poll Res 14(1) 99-103

8 De Zawaan A and Zandee DJ 1973Body distribution and seasonal chang-es in glycogen contents of the com-mon sea mussel Mytilus edulis Comp Biochem Physiol 43 53-55

9 Folch J Lees M and Sloane-Stanely GH 1957 A simple method for isola-tion and purification of total lipids from animal tissues J Biol Chem 226 497-507

10 Herger W Jung SJ and Peter H 1995 Acute and prolonged toxicity to aquatic organisms of new and existing chemicals and pesticides Chemosphere 31 2707-2726

11 Kanagraj MK Ramesh M Shiv Ku-mari K and Manavalaramanujam R 1993 Impact of acid pollution on the serum hemolymph cholesterol of the crab Paratelphusa hydrodromous J Ecotoxicol Environ Monit 31(2) 99-102

12 Khare A and Singh S 2002Impact of malathion on protein content in the freshwater fish Clarias batrachus J Ec-otoxicol Environ Monit 12(2) 129-132

13 Kumar A Tripathi N and Tripathi M 2007a Effect of fluoride on lipid me-tabolism in freshwater catfish Clarias batrachus (Linn) Environ Ecol 25S(3) 683-686

14 Kumar A Tripathi N and Tripathi M 2007b Fluoride-induced biochemical changes in fresh water catfish (Clarias batrachus Linn) Fluoride 40(1) 37-41

15 Logaswamy S and Remia KM 2009Impact of cypermethrin and ekalux on

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors are thankful to the Head De-partment of Zoology University of Luc-know for providing necessary facilities to carry out this study

28-33

33 bullbull


respiratory and some biochemical ac-tivities of freshwater fish Tilapia mos-sambica Current Biotica 3(1) 65-73

16 Lowry OH Rosenbrough NJ Farr AL and Randall RL 1951 Protein measurement with Folin phenol rea-gent J Biol Chem 193 265-275

17 Montgomery R 1957 Determination of glycogen Arch Biochem Biophys 67 378-386

18 Nagrathnamma and Ramamurthi R 1982 Metabolic depression in the freshwater teleost Cyprinus carpio ex-posed to an organophosphate pesti-cide Curr Sci 51(B) 668-669

19 Rosenthal HL Pfluke ML and Buscaglia S 1957 A stable iron rea-gent for determination of cholesterol J Lab Clin Med 50 318

20 Rosenthal HL Pfluke ML and Buscaglia S 1957 A stable iron rea-

gent for determination of cholesterol J Lab Clin Med 50 318

21 Shakoori AR Mughal AL and Iqbal MJ 1996 Effects of sub-lethal doses of fenvelerate (A synthetic pyrethroid) administered continuously for four weeks on the blood liver and muscles of freshwater fish Ctenopharyngodan idella Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 57 487-494

22 Susan AT Veeraiah K and Tilak KS 1999 Biochemical and enzymatic changes in the tissues of Catla catla exposed to the pyrethroid fenvelerate J Ecobiol 11(2) 109-116

23 Vutukuru SS (2005) Acute effects of hexavalent chromium on survival oxy-gen consumption haematological pa-rameters and some biochemical pro-files of the Indian major carp Labeo rohita Inter J Environ Res Public Hlth 2(3) 456-462

28-33

34 bullbull


Toxic repellent and population suppressant activities of selected spice powders towards coleopteran beetles

infesting stored grains

Veena P Swami Amrita Singh Ashok Kumar and Tabrez Ahmad

PG Department of ZoologyBSNV PG College Lucknow

E-mail veenapswamigmailcom


Abstract

Ŝpices are commonly used in food for flavor fragrance and color Some commonly used spices in Indian kitchen were evaluated for repellency contact and fumigant toxicity and population suppressant activities against two stored grain insects Rhyzo-pertha dominica and Sitophilus oryzae The spices were used either singly or in combina-tions Powders of Foeniculum vulgare fruit Coriandrum sativum fruit and Mentha piperita leaf showed toxicity against test insects with LD50 values ranging from 178-200g100g food in contact assay In the space trial the leaf powder of Laurus nobilis was found to have fumigant toxicity towards adults of Rhyzopertha dominica and Sitophilus oryzae with LC50 values of 981 and 167glit respectively The repellency assay revealed 1000 repulsion towards adults of Rhyzopertha dominica and Sitophilus oryzae by fruit pow-der of Cuminum cyminum Similarly powder of F vulgare P nigrum and C cyminum re-sulted into complete inhibition of progeny production against Rhyzopertha dominica and Sitophilus oryzae

The binary mixture of L nobilis and C sativum showed both contact and fumigant tox-icity Similarly binary mixtures of C cyminum and F vulgare showed both repellent and progeny development inhibition against Rhyzopertha dominica and Sitophilus oryzae

Keywords Rhyzopertha dominica Sitophilus oryzae plant powders toxicity repellency and progeny suppressant

INTRODUCTION


Damage to stored grains by insect is es-timated to be about 10-40 world wide Coleopteran beetles Rhyzopertha dominica and Sitophilus oryzae infestation to stored grain constitutes a complex situation that reduc-es weight quality cultural value and ger-

mination of harvested grain and thereby reducing market value and making food grain unsuitable for human consump-tion (Marsans 1987) The most common method to control such losses is the use of commercially available synthetic insec-ticides which cause environmental and health hazards and most importantly

34-45

35 bullbull


development of resistance among the in-sects (Champ and Dyte 1976 Tyler et al 1983 White 1995) Thus there is a need to develop alternative cheap and safe meth-ods of insect-pest management under stored condition especially from plants Some plants such as Mentha piperita Linn (Misra and Kumar 1983) Piper nigrum Linn (Su 1977) Pongamia glabra Vent (Sighamo-ny et al 1986) and Azadirachta indica (Jilani and Malik 1973) have been evaluated as stored grain protectantsTherefore devel-opment of botanicals to replace toxic fu-migants and minimize insecticidal resid-ual effects would be of significant social and health benefits (Ndungu et al 1995)

Among the plant products spices are characterized by their flavor and odours due to presence of oleoresins Being vol-atile in nature the constituents of some spices become important cues for certain behavior of insects (Jacobson 1966) and may also act as potent source of botani-cal pesticides (Jilani et al 1988) The sur-vey of scientific literature indicates that mostly essential oils of spices like anise and peppermint (Shaaya et al1991) gin-ger (Prakash and Rao 1987) cinnamon (Michael et al 1985) etc have been re-ported for stored grain protectant activity However literature on biological activities of spice powders is still scanty Rani and Lakshmi (2007) reported the stored grain protectant activity of flower extracts and steam distilled oil of the african marigold Tagetes erecta (L) against Cchinensis

The present study has been aimed to in-vestigate powders of certain spices which are commonly used in Indian kitchens for coloring and flavoring of food stuffs be-sides various preparations of indigenous systems of medicine The lipophilic na-


Eight medicinal spices listed in Table 1 were dried in shade and ground to fine powder mechanically just before the start of each set of experiments The powders were packed in cheese cloth bags These bags were used in all the experiments

Plant powder

Insect cultureCulture of R dominica was reared on wheat flour mixed with brewerrsquos yeast and Soryzae on whole wheat grain in a growth cabinet at a constant temperature of 300C and 70 rh with a photoperiod of 12h light12h dark Adults of R dominica (5-7 d old) and Soryzae (5-7 d old) were used in all the experiments

Contact toxicity assayThe spice powders contained in cheese cloth bags were kept at the bottom of the jam bottles (300 ml capacity) along with food substrates in five serial rates 5 10 15 20 and 25g of ground powders100g of sterilized food materials Untreated food materials of respective insects served as control Batches of 10 adult insects were

tures of monoterpenoids present in spice are significant for insecticidal activities (Naik et al 1993) The spices evaluated in the present investigation produce es-sential oils rich in molecules which were structural units In the present paper pow-ders of selected spices have been inves-tigated for their toxic repellent and popu-lation suppressant activities against two stored product coleopterans Rhyzopertha dominica and Sitophilus oryzae Further their synergistic combinations have also been evaluated for search of a suitable formu-lation product acting as stored grain pro-tectant

34-45

36 bullbull


Effect of sub-lethal doses of ground plant powders on progeny development of tested insects Fumigant toxicity assays

The plant powders were tested for fumi-gant toxicity in space trial test Plant pow-ders (5 10 15 20 and 25g of each plant) were taken in a muslin cloth bag and placed at the bottom of 1 liter glass bottle Batches of ten insects of both the species were introduced into each bottle by plac-ing them in a separate plastic vials con-taining food materials of test insects The both the ends of vial was covered with copper wire mesh and such vials were hanged in the each bottle whose cap was screwed tightly and their caps were screwed tightly In control no plant mate-rial was kept Ten replicates were set up for each treatment and for control Mortal-ity was observed at 48h intervals until end-point mortality which was reached after 7d The LC50 values were determinedRepellent assayPowders of each plant were evaluated for repellency at the rate of 15g 50g of food 50g of treated and untreated foods were separately placed on opposite sides of a rectangular glass arena (20 x 12 x 12 cm) with 12 cm space between the surfaces Ten adults of each test species starved for 48h were then introduced at the cent-er of the arena and replicated 10 times After 1h the numbers of insects found on or within a 15 cm radius of treated and untreated food in each chamber were counted Percent repellency (PR) val-ues were computed as PR = [(NC-NT)(NC+NT)] x 100 where NC = No of in-sects in control and NT = No of insects

Data analysisData from all experiments were subject-ed to analysis of variance (ANOVA) and means were separated by Least Square Difference (LSD test) (SAS Institute 1988) LC50 was determined by probit analysis (Finney 1971) Mortality data was cor-rected using Abbottrsquos formula (Abbott 1925 SPSS 1999)


Effect of spice powders as contact toxicant towards R dominica and Soryzae is given in Table 2 and 3 respectively Perusal of Ta-ble 2 indicates that powder of LC TM and GN were highly toxic with LD50 values of 1780 1987 and 2005 g100g food re-spectively CM and AJ had the same level of toxicity Same case was found with GC and CV In combination (11) GC + TM

Contact toxicity

introduced in each bottle and closed air-tight with lid Five replications were used for each dose Mortality was recorded daily but the analysis was based on mor-tality percentage after 7d of exposure pe-riods

Spice powders found toxic towards both the test insect species were tested at low-er doses to verify their effects on progeny development Spice powders at the rate of 1 2 and 5g 100g food were placed in cy-lindrical jars (25 x 10 cm) Ten adult insects of both the test insects were introduced separately in each jar and then covered Each treatment was replicated five times The parent adults were removed after 7 d Observations on F1 adults emerged were made after 30 d of introduction of parent adults

in treated PR data were analyzed using ANOVA (analysis of variance-single fac-tor)

34-45

37 bullbull


Data on fumigant toxicity (Table 2) indi-cates that GC and CV were quite effec-tive towards R dominica with LC50 values of 981 g100g food for both TM IC and AJ were devoid of fumigant toxicity How-ever in combination study GC + TM LC + GN GC + IC showed vapour toxicity The LC50 of binary mixture of LC and GN was found to be 4 folds and 2 folds greater than GN and LC respectively Similarly AJ was not effective but in combination with CM showed enhanced toxicity of combi-nation product (CM + AJ) Similarly TM was not toxic but enhanced the activity of GC in combination (GC + TM) Against S oryzae GC showed toxicity GC in com-bination with IC showed increased toxic-ity Similarly CM + AJ combination also showed fumigant toxicity against S oryzae (Table 3)

Repellency

Powder was highly repellent towards both the test insects (Table 4) with 925-100 repellency LC powder was effec-tive only against Rdominica adults with a repellency of 984 Repellency data in-

Effect of sub-lethal doses of ground plant powders on progeny development of tested insects

Fumigant toxicity

gave toxicity followed by GC + IC GC and TM showed better effect in combination Surprisingly IC was completely non-toxic but in combination with GC(LD50=2349 g100g food) it potentiated the effect of GC and enhanced the toxicity of the GC + IC combination(LD50=2049g100g food)Among all the plant powders only GN was found to be toxic towards S oryzae with LD50 value of 2049 g100g food (Ta-ble 3) In combinations LC + GN showed slightly more toxicity than GN towards S oryzae

At the maximum dose of 5 g100g food LC CM and CV completely inhibited prog-eny production in both the test insects (Table 5) Among the combination prod-ucts only LC + CV inhibited progeny pro-duction completely in both test insects

The results of the present investigation indicates that powders of Fvulgare(LC)C cyminum (CV) and L nobilis exhibit di-verse anti-insect activities like contact and fumigant toxicity repellency and progeny development suppression Essential oil of L nobilis rich in 18-cineole has also been reported previously to have contact and fumigant toxicity against S oryzae and Tri-bolium castaneum (Huang et al 2000) Simi-larly E cardamomum has 18- cineole as a major constituent in its essential oil (Hus-sain et al 1988) and 18-cineole from Arte-misia annua oil has been found to be toxic feeding deterrent and growth disruptant against T castaneum (Triapthi et al 2001) Thus the present bioactivity of L nobilis and F vulgare may primarily be attributed to the presence of cineole Eugenol has been reported to protect grain against stored product insects (Obeng-ofori and Reich-muth 1997) It may be possible that the same constituents present in C cyminum are responsible for bioactivities reported in this paper Apart from this hexane ex-tract of flower buds of S aromaticum has been reported to cause mortality towards

dicates that the binary mixture containing powders of LC + CV was effective against both insects but none of the binary mix-tures(11) showed synergistic effect

34-45

38 bullbull


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Authors are thankful to the Head Depart-ment of Zoology BSNV PG College Luc-know for providing necessary facilities and encouragement

S zeamais adults and also suppressed progeny production in T castaneum (Ho et al 1994) Further combination of L nobi-lis with C sativum resulted in best contact and fumigant toxicity Similarly combina-tion of F vulgare and C cyminum provided considerable repellency towards the test insects Synergistic effect of combination of essential oils of C cyminum M piperita and Piper guineense in terms of population suppressant towards Callosobruchus macu-latus has also been reported (Ajayi and Lale 2000) apart from essential oil combi-nation of Artemisia princes and Cinnamomum camphora which showed repellent effect towards S oryzae and Bruchus rugimanus (Liu et al 2006) The compound linalool limonene and camphor in the oil of C camphora were reported to be toxic repel-lent or fumigant against insects and some of them acted synergistically (Triapthi et al 2000 2003 Ahmed 2006) Therefore these compounds or their interaction might contribute the whole repellent and insecticidal activity of C camphora powder against the stored product beetles How these constituents in synergistic combi-nation interact and result in the enhance-ment of insecticidal and repellent activi-ties needs further investigation Rhizome powder of Z officinale has been found to reduce F1 progeny of Sitophilus oryzae sig-nificantly (Ahamad and Ahmed 1991) whereas essential oil of Z officinale has also been reported as ovicidal and repel-lent towards mosquitoes (Prajapati et al 2005)

The data generated by the use of indi-

vidual plant powders and combinations are suggestive of increased effects of the some of the constituents of the spices Growth disruptant effect of some spices like badi saumf black pepper and cumin and their binary mixtures look more prom-ising in view of total growth disruption ex-hibited by them This clue may provide effective clue to optimize the economical dose coupled with short term and long term effects

Since the oil glands of the spices rup-tured during processing powders of test materials kept in bags of muslin cloth for fumigant studies the essential oil compo-nent emitted from the powders according to their rate of volatility get diffuse in the closed chamber ie in storage bottle and produced this insecticidal activity The spices used in this experiment beside their biodegradable nature have added advantage of being edible and producing good flavor to the stored grains (Korikan-thimathm et al 2000) So these materi-als can be utilized for purpose effectively without any risk of hazard Further experi-ments on dose optimization at constitu-ent level may lead to the development of a product effective as stored grain pro-tectant

34-45

39 bullbull


Table 1 List of plants selected under study

Table 2 Response of spice powders and their combinations (11) towards mortality of Rhizopertha dominica in contact and fumigant toxicity assay

34-45

40 bullbull

Int J Agri Sci amp Tech Vol 2 (1) 2013 pp ISSN 2319 - 880X34-45

41 bullbull


Table 3 Response of spices powders and their combinations (11) towards mortality of Sitophilus ory-zae in contact and fumigant toxicity assay

34-45

42 bullbull


Table 4 Mean repellency caused by various spice powders and their binary mixtures (11) at the dose of 15 g50g food towards Rhizopertha dominica and Sitophilus oryzae after 1h

34-45

43 bullbull


Table 5 Effect of spice powders and their combinations (11) on progeny development of Rhizoper-tha dominica and Sitophilus oryzae

34-45

44 bullbull


REFERENCES1 Abbott WS 1925 A method of comput-

ing the effectiveness of an insecticide J Econ Entomol 18 265-267

2 Ahamad APY Ahmed SM 1991 Po-tential of some rhizomes of Zingib-eraceae family as grain protectants against storage insect pests J Food Sci Tech 28 375-377

3 Ahmed MA 2006 Toxicity and repel-lency of seven plant essential oils to Oryzaephilus surinamensis (Coleoptera Silvanidae) and Tribolium castaneunm (Co-leoptera Tenebrionidae) Scientific J King Faisal Univ (Basic and Applied Sciences) 7 1427H

4 Ajayi FA Lale NES 2000 Suscepti-bility of unprotected seeds and seeds of local bambara groundnut cultivars protected with insecticidal essential oils to infestation by Callosobruchus mac-ulatus (F) (Coleoptera Bruchidae) J Stored Prod Res 3747-62

5 Annonymous 1952 Wealth of India Raw Materials CSIR Publications New Delhi 1A10

6 Champ BR Dyte CE 1976 Report of the FAO global survey of pesticide sus-ceptibility of stored grain pests Plant Prod and Prot Bull 5

7 Finney DJ 1971 Probit Analysis Cam-bridge University Press London

8 Ho SH Cheng LPL Sim KY Tan HTW 1994 Potential of cloves (Syzygium aro-maticum (l) Merr and Perry as a grain protectant against Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) and Sitophilus zeamais Motsch Postharvest Biol Tech 4179-183

9 Huang Y Lam SL Ho SH 2000 Bio-activities of essential oil from Elletaria cardamomum (L) Maton to Sitophilus zea-

mais Motschulsky and Tribolum castaneum (Herbst) J Stored Prod Res 36 107-117

10 Hussain A Virmani OP Sharma A Ku-mar A Mishra LN 1988 Major essen-tial oil bearing plants of India CIMAP Publication Lucknow India

11 Jacobson M 1966 Chemical insect attractant and repellents Annual Rev Entomol 11403-423

12 Jilani G Malik MM 1973 Studies on neem plant as repellent against stored grain pests Pak J Sci Indust Res 16 251-254

13 Jilani G Saxena RC Rueda BP 1988 Repellent and growth inhibit-ing effects of turmeric oil sweet flag oil neem oil and Margosan-O on red flour beetle Tribolium castaneum (TenebrionidaeColeoptera) J Econ Enomol 81 1226-1230

14 Korikanthimathm VS Rasath D Rao G 2000 Medicinal properties of Cardamon Elletaria cardamomum J Med Arom Plant Sci 22 683-685

15 Liu CH Mishra AK Tan RX Tang C Yang H Shen YF 2006 Repellent and insecticidal activities of essential oils from Artemisia princeps and Cinnamomum camphora and their effect on seed ger-mination of wheat and broad bean Bi-oresource Tech 97 1969ndash1973

16 Marsans GJ 1987 Manejoy Conserva-cion de Granos Hemisferio Sur ed Bue-nos Aires P 263

17 Michael G Ahmed S Mitchel WC Hyl-ein JW 1985 Plant species reportedly possessing pest control properties An EWCUH DATA BASE Univ of Hawaii p 249

34-45

45 bullbull


18 Misra RC Kumar J 1983 Evaluation of Mentha piperita L oil as fumigant against red flour beetle Tribolium cas-taneum (Herbst) Ind Perf 27 73-76

19 Naik SN Kumar A Maheshwari RC 1993 Isolation of natural insecticidal Compounds from essential oils by us-ing sub and super critical carbon diox-ide Ind Perf 37 364-372

20 Prajapati V Tripathi AK Aggarwal KK Khanuja SPS 2005 Insecticidal repel-lent and oviposition-deterrent activ-ity of selected essential oils against Anopheles stephensi Aedes aegypti and Culex quinquefasciatus Bioresource Tech 96 1749-1757

21 Prakash A Rao J 1987 Use of chemi-cals as grain protectants in storage ecosystem and its consequences Bull Grain Tech 25 65-69

22 SAS Institute 1988 SASSTAT userrsquos guide statistics version 603 SAS Insti-tute Cary NC

23 Ndungu M Hassanali A Moreka L Chander SC (1995) Cleomemonophylla essential oil and its constituents as tick (Rhipicephalus appendiculatus) and maize weevil (Sitophilus zeamais) repellents En-tomol Exp Appl 76 217-222

24 Obeng-Ofori D Reichmuth CH 1997 Bioactivity of eugenol a major com-ponent of Ocimum suvae (Wild) against four species of stored product Coleop-tera Int J Pest Managm 43 89-94

25 RaniPU and LakshmiUS 2007Tagetes erecta(L) essential oil floral and foliar extracts as potential grain protectants against three species of stored product pestsUttar Pradesh JZool27(2)159-169

26 Shaaya E Ravid V Paster N Juven

B Zisman U Pissarerw V 1991 Fumi-gant toxicity of essential oils against four major stored product insects J Chem Ecol 17 499-504

27 Sighamony SD Aness I Chandrakala T Osmani Z 1986 Efficacy of certain indegenous plant products as grain protectants against Sitophilus oryzae and Rhyzopertha dominica J Stored Prod Res 22 21-23

28 SPSS 1999 SPSS for Windows ver-sion 901 SPSS Chicago IL

29 Su HCF 1977 Insecticidal properties of black pepper to rice weevils and cowpea weevils J Econ Entomol70 18-21

30 Tripathi AK Prajapati V Aggarwal KK Khanuja SPS Kumar S 2000 Repel-lency and toxicity of oil from Artemisia annua to certain stored product beetles J Econ Entomol 9343-47

31 Tripathi AK Prajapati V Aggarwal KK Kumar S 2001 Toxicity feeding deter-rence and effect of activity of 18-cin-eole from Artemisia annua on progeny production of Tribolium castaneum (Coleoptera Tenebrionidae) J Econ Entomol 94 979-983

32 Tripathi AK Prajapati V Khanuja SPS Kumar S 2003 Effect of d-limonene on three stored product beetles J Econ Entomol 96 990-995

33 Tyler PS Tayler RW Rees DP 1983 Insect resistance to phosphine fumi-gation in food warehouses in Bangla-desh Int Pest Control 25 21-24

34 White NDG 1995 Insects mites and insecticides in stored grain ecosys-tems In Stored grain ecosystem Eds DS Jayas NDG White and WEMuir pp 123-168 Marcel Dekker New York

34-45

46 bullbull


The articles are not printed in gratis A nominal chargeof Rs 500=00 per printed page is charged and is printed in BW colour For any coloured page is separately charged Charges for the same is quoted on request Five Reprints and a copy of Journal is provided to the Corresponding author Extra copies of the Journal for coauthor only are supplied on charge Rs 400-00 per copy and shall be sent along with the copy of the Correspondent Author

PRINTING CHARGE

All remittances are to be on line credited in the account of NATIONAL PRINTER amp PUBLISHER in the BANK OF MA-HARASHTRA KALKAJI BRANCH NEW DELHI IFSC MAHB0000974 Current Account No 60092605309 and inform the Editor-in-Chief accordingly

For quick reply please note the address and contact them directly by Post or email-a) For publication of your article Acceptance letter Invoice sending of ChequesDrafts for sending Review Reports Status Report about your article and all other quarries related to your articles should be sent directly to the Editor-in-Chief whose address is as follows

ProfT R C Sinha-THE EDITOR-IN-CHIEF S-233 First Floor Greater Kailash- 2NEW DELHI- 110048 (INDIA) Email trcsinha_12yahoocom manisha_nppyahoocom

CONTACT US

REMITTANCE

REQUESTAuthors are requested to keep a copy of the Mss till it is published in the Journal

The Research Article should be in the following order

Guidelines to AuthorsInternational Journal of Agricultural Science amp Technology

Benefit to Authors

Submission of Article(s)All manuscripts are to be submitted in English typed double-spaced throughout the text It is requested that manuscripts be sent by e-mail only Authors will be requested to substantiate the need if it exceeds the maximum number of pagesAll manuscript should be submitted to the Editor-in-Chief directly

Following benefits shall be available to the authors if your article is published in the journals of this PUBLISHERAuthors can use their published articles in any way they like for the dissipation of knowledge free of charge However it can not be used for any commercial use without prior permission Authors can have access on all articles published by this Publisher Wide publicity and reach by getting indexed in many free indexing services

This journal is published by the National Printer amp Publisher (NPP) New Delhi twice in a year The emphasis is to involve a large community of scientists specially JUNIOR SCIENTISTS and scholars from India and abroad in devel-oping a framework of discussion and debate on conservation and sustainable development Research articles Review articles Book reviews Interviews Short communication Letters to the Editor Case reports and News items related to the subject are accepted for publication The PUBLISHER is aiming to publish your article as rapidly as possible pro-vide a rapid publishing platform each and every point is vital to reduce the editorial work flow Authors are requested to extend their maximum cooperation for speedy actions to be taken at this end Hence they are requested to check the guidelines thoroughly before submitting their article (s) and check that all the required informations are mentioned and strictly according to the guide lines

In the 1st Part1) Title 2)Name of the organisation where work was carried out 3)Name of the Author with whom correspondence is to be made along with hisher MobNo 4)Date of Submission 5)No of Tables 6)No of Photographs 7)Numbers of Graphs 8)No of References 9)Name and addresses of at least Three referees along with their Email IDs and Mob NosIn the 2nd Part 1) Title of The Article 2) Name and addresses of all the Author(s) along with their Email IDs and MobNos 3) Ab-stract(12 Page) 4) Introduction 5) Materials and methods 6) Results 7) Discussions (if any) 8) Acknowledgements 10) References (Under References heading Name of the Journals should be in bold letters) and (11) Name of The journalTablesto be included should have a heading giving the substance and should be typed double-spaced on separate sheets They should also be numbered in serial order Figures either drawn manually or by computer should be in black ink and the lettering on them should be large enough to stand reduction Photographs in colour should have sharp contrast Legends for figures and plates should be typed in numerical order on separate sheets one for figures and one for platesReferences

A For articles in a Journal-Walsh JE (2008) Climate of the Arctic Marine Environment Ecological Applications 18 pp 3-22B For Books-Ward DR (2002) Water Wars drought floods folly and politics of thirst River head Books New York p 12C Chapter in a book-Andrews TJ Clo ugh BF and Muller GJ (1984) Photosynthetic gas exchange properties and carbon isotope ratios of some mangroves in North Queensland In HJ Teas (Ed) Physiology and Management of Mangroves W Junk The Hague pp 15-23 From website-National Oceans and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 1995 Regional Perspectives Indian Ocean wwwncdcnoaagov paleooutreach coralsorsor_indianhtml accessed on July 13 2008While giving reference of more than two authors in the text after the name of the first author et al should be used followed by the year of publication

The literature cited should list the authorrsquos name year of publication title of the paper and the Journal titles(bold let-ters) which should be cited in full (no abbreviation) with volume number and page numbers as indicated below


C o n t e n t sReviewed Articles

NATIONAL PRINTER amp PUBLISHER22 (Basement)G-2 Tulsi TowerAlaknanda Community CentreNEW DELHI - 110019 (INDIA)Email trcsinha_12yahoocom manisha_nppyahoocom

June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19



6 28Fluoride Induced Biochemical Alterations In the Gills of Sting-ing Catfish Heteropneustes fossilis (Bloch)Sandeep Bajpai and Madhu Tripathi

7 34




Physico-chemical characteristics of calcareous soils in district Deoria and Gorakhpur of Eastern Uttar PradeshAKS Parihar Veerendra Dixit and Arvind Kumar

COVERAGE OF THE JOURNAL

OBJECTIVE OF THE JOURNAL

CALL FOR PAPERSWe invite you to submit high quality papers for review and possible publication in all areas of environmental science and technology which includes atmospheric terrestrial and aquatic environment pollution control and abatement technology conservation of natural resources environmental health human behaviour and toxicology All authors must agree on the content of the manuscript and its submission for publication in this Journal before it is submitted to us Manuscripts should be submitted by e-mail to the Editor at trcsinha_12yahoocom manisha_nppyahoocom

To promote and encourage specially YOUNG SCIENTISTS to take active part in research and get acquainted with the lat-est development and research in the field of environmental science and technology To promote cooperation in the pursuit of research in general and to exchange and contribute to the progress in the field of environmental science and technology in particular

Following types of papers are invited for publication in this Journal -a) Original Research Papers of Scientific values b) Review Papersc) Short Communications d) Case Reports e) Letters to the Editor f) As you see

TYPES OF PAPERS ARE INVITED

REVIEWERS PROCESSAll manuscripts are reviewed by an editor and members of the Editorial Board or qualified outside REVIEWERS Deci-sions will be made as rapidly as possible and the Journal strive to return reviewerrsquos comments to authors within 6 weeks The Editorial Board will re-review manuscripts that are accepted pending reviewers It is the goal of the this Journal to publish manuscripts within 4 weeks after submission after getting O K report from the AuthorCONTACT US

ABOUT THE JOURNAL

For purchase of books Journals publication of books print-ing of any type of matter quotations etc should be sent di-rectly to the CHIEF EXECUTIVE whose address is as follows ToMrs Reshma Srivastava MATHE CHIEF EXECUTIVENATIONAL PRINTER amp PUBLISHER22(Basement)G-2 Tulsi TowerAlaknanda Community Centre NEW DELHI - 110019 (INDIA)Email infonpp12gmailcom

For all publication matters related to the Journals Accept-ance letter for publication of articles Invoice Reprints etc should be sent directly to the PUBLICATION EDITOR whose address is as follows ToMrs Manisha Verma BSc BTechPUBLICATION EDITOR( Ј )NATIONAL PRINTER amp PUBLISHER22(Basement) G-2 Tulsi Tower Alaknanda Community Centre NEW DELHI - 110019(INDIA)Email manisha_nppyahoocom

For publication of your article Acceptance letter Review Reports Status Report and all other quarries related to your articles should be sent directly to the Editor-in-Chief whose address is as follows

Prof TRC Sinha THE EDITOR-IN-CHIEFS-233 First Floor Greater Kailash- 2NEW DELHI - 110048 (INDIA) Email trcsinha_12yahoocom

1 Soil Science 2 Water amp Soil Pollution

3 Agricultural Entomology 4 Aquaculture

5 Groundwater Pollution 6 Pesticides

7 Limnology 8 Sericultural Biotechnology

9 Toxicology 10 Plant Protection Science

11 Animal Husbandry 12 Meteorology

13 Biological and Chemical Control 14 Agronomical Science

15 Seed Science and Technology 16 Forest and Forestry

17 Agricultural Waste 18 Any other related topics






June- 2013







Editorial Board











Associate Editor









ISSN 2319-880X


June - 2013


















Technical Editor



Assistant Editors










Executive Editor






I




1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19



6 28

June - 2013


7 34


amp Technology





















1 bullbull







Abstract





1-8

2 bullbull





1-8

3 bullbull






1-8

4 bullbull




1-8

5 bullbull




1-8

6 bullbull



1-8

7 bullbull



1-8

8 bullbull











1-8

9 bullbull






Abstract


INTRODUCTION





9-12

10 bullbull








Interaction Effects


REFERENCES






9-12

11 bullbull


ble

1 E

ffec

ts o

f Nitr

ogen

and

Sul

phur

leve

ls o

n yi

eld

yie

ld a

ttri

bute

s and

qua

lity

of R

ajm

ash

DA

S =

Day

s Aft

er S

owin

g9-12

12 bullbull






IAS BHU Varansi


9-12

13 bullbull








Abstract






13-18

14 bullbull







2

2





13-18

of

15 bullbull







13-18

16 bullbull



13-18

17 bullbull



13-18

18 bullbull






CONCLUSION


REFERENCES



13-18

19 bullbull







Abstract








19-21

20 bullbull








19-21

21 bullbull















19-21

22 bullbull






Abstract





22-27

23 bullbull
















22-27

24 bullbull








22-27

25 bullbull



22-27

26 bullbull



22-27

27 bullbull


Dhuka et al (1992)



REFERENCES










22-27

28 bullbull






Abstract






28-33

29 bullbull








28-33

30 bullbull








28-33

31 bullbull







28-33

32 bullbull


REFERENCES

















ACKNOWLEDGEMENT


28-33

33 bullbull












28-33

34 bullbull








Abstract




INTRODUCTION




34-45

35 bullbull







Plant powder




34-45

36 bullbull







Contact toxicity




34-45

37 bullbull



Repellency



Fumigant toxicity





34-45

38 bullbull


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT






34-45

39 bullbull




34-45

40 bullbull


41 bullbull



34-45

42 bullbull



34-45

43 bullbull



34-45

44 bullbull





















34-45

45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34










June- 2013







Editorial Board











Associate Editor









ISSN 2319-880X


June - 2013


















Technical Editor



Assistant Editors










Executive Editor






I




1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19



6 28

June - 2013


7 34


amp Technology





















1 bullbull







Abstract





1-8

2 bullbull





1-8

3 bullbull






1-8

4 bullbull




1-8

5 bullbull




1-8

6 bullbull



1-8

7 bullbull



1-8

8 bullbull











1-8

9 bullbull






Abstract


INTRODUCTION





9-12

10 bullbull








Interaction Effects


REFERENCES






9-12

11 bullbull


ble

1 E

ffec

ts o

f Nitr

ogen

and

Sul

phur

leve

ls o

n yi

eld

yie

ld a

ttri

bute

s and

qua

lity

of R

ajm

ash

DA

S =

Day

s Aft

er S

owin

g9-12

12 bullbull






IAS BHU Varansi


9-12

13 bullbull








Abstract






13-18

14 bullbull







2

2





13-18

of

15 bullbull







13-18

16 bullbull



13-18

17 bullbull



13-18

18 bullbull






CONCLUSION


REFERENCES



13-18

19 bullbull







Abstract








19-21

20 bullbull








19-21

21 bullbull















19-21

22 bullbull






Abstract





22-27

23 bullbull
















22-27

24 bullbull








22-27

25 bullbull



22-27

26 bullbull



22-27

27 bullbull


Dhuka et al (1992)



REFERENCES










22-27

28 bullbull






Abstract






28-33

29 bullbull








28-33

30 bullbull








28-33

31 bullbull







28-33

32 bullbull


REFERENCES

















ACKNOWLEDGEMENT


28-33

33 bullbull












28-33

34 bullbull








Abstract




INTRODUCTION




34-45

35 bullbull







Plant powder




34-45

36 bullbull







Contact toxicity




34-45

37 bullbull



Repellency



Fumigant toxicity





34-45

38 bullbull


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT






34-45

39 bullbull




34-45

40 bullbull


41 bullbull



34-45

42 bullbull



34-45

43 bullbull



34-45

44 bullbull





















34-45

45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34







Editorial Board











Associate Editor









ISSN 2319-880X


June - 2013


















Technical Editor



Assistant Editors










Executive Editor






I




1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19



6 28

June - 2013


7 34


amp Technology





















1 bullbull







Abstract





1-8

2 bullbull





1-8

3 bullbull






1-8

4 bullbull




1-8

5 bullbull




1-8

6 bullbull



1-8

7 bullbull



1-8

8 bullbull











1-8

9 bullbull






Abstract


INTRODUCTION





9-12

10 bullbull








Interaction Effects


REFERENCES






9-12

11 bullbull


ble

1 E

ffec

ts o

f Nitr

ogen

and

Sul

phur

leve

ls o

n yi

eld

yie

ld a

ttri

bute

s and

qua

lity

of R

ajm

ash

DA

S =

Day

s Aft

er S

owin

g9-12

12 bullbull






IAS BHU Varansi


9-12

13 bullbull








Abstract






13-18

14 bullbull







2

2





13-18

of

15 bullbull







13-18

16 bullbull



13-18

17 bullbull



13-18

18 bullbull






CONCLUSION


REFERENCES



13-18

19 bullbull







Abstract








19-21

20 bullbull








19-21

21 bullbull















19-21

22 bullbull






Abstract





22-27

23 bullbull
















22-27

24 bullbull








22-27

25 bullbull



22-27

26 bullbull



22-27

27 bullbull


Dhuka et al (1992)



REFERENCES










22-27

28 bullbull






Abstract






28-33

29 bullbull








28-33

30 bullbull








28-33

31 bullbull







28-33

32 bullbull


REFERENCES

















ACKNOWLEDGEMENT


28-33

33 bullbull












28-33

34 bullbull








Abstract




INTRODUCTION




34-45

35 bullbull







Plant powder




34-45

36 bullbull







Contact toxicity




34-45

37 bullbull



Repellency



Fumigant toxicity





34-45

38 bullbull


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT






34-45

39 bullbull




34-45

40 bullbull


41 bullbull



34-45

42 bullbull



34-45

43 bullbull



34-45

44 bullbull





















34-45

45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34








1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19



6 28

June - 2013


7 34


amp Technology





















1 bullbull







Abstract





1-8

2 bullbull





1-8

3 bullbull






1-8

4 bullbull




1-8

5 bullbull




1-8

6 bullbull



1-8

7 bullbull



1-8

8 bullbull











1-8

9 bullbull






Abstract


INTRODUCTION





9-12

10 bullbull








Interaction Effects


REFERENCES






9-12

11 bullbull


ble

1 E

ffec

ts o

f Nitr

ogen

and

Sul

phur

leve

ls o

n yi

eld

yie

ld a

ttri

bute

s and

qua

lity

of R

ajm

ash

DA

S =

Day

s Aft

er S

owin

g9-12

12 bullbull






IAS BHU Varansi


9-12

13 bullbull








Abstract






13-18

14 bullbull







2

2





13-18

of

15 bullbull







13-18

16 bullbull



13-18

17 bullbull



13-18

18 bullbull






CONCLUSION


REFERENCES



13-18

19 bullbull







Abstract








19-21

20 bullbull








19-21

21 bullbull















19-21

22 bullbull






Abstract





22-27

23 bullbull
















22-27

24 bullbull








22-27

25 bullbull



22-27

26 bullbull



22-27

27 bullbull


Dhuka et al (1992)



REFERENCES










22-27

28 bullbull






Abstract






28-33

29 bullbull








28-33

30 bullbull








28-33

31 bullbull







28-33

32 bullbull


REFERENCES

















ACKNOWLEDGEMENT


28-33

33 bullbull












28-33

34 bullbull








Abstract




INTRODUCTION




34-45

35 bullbull







Plant powder




34-45

36 bullbull







Contact toxicity




34-45

37 bullbull



Repellency



Fumigant toxicity





34-45

38 bullbull


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT






34-45

39 bullbull




34-45

40 bullbull


41 bullbull



34-45

42 bullbull



34-45

43 bullbull



34-45

44 bullbull





















34-45

45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34





1 bullbull







Abstract





1-8

2 bullbull





1-8

3 bullbull






1-8

4 bullbull




1-8

5 bullbull




1-8

6 bullbull



1-8

7 bullbull



1-8

8 bullbull











1-8

9 bullbull






Abstract


INTRODUCTION





9-12

10 bullbull








Interaction Effects


REFERENCES






9-12

11 bullbull


ble

1 E

ffec

ts o

f Nitr

ogen

and

Sul

phur

leve

ls o

n yi

eld

yie

ld a

ttri

bute

s and

qua

lity

of R

ajm

ash

DA

S =

Day

s Aft

er S

owin

g9-12

12 bullbull






IAS BHU Varansi


9-12

13 bullbull








Abstract






13-18

14 bullbull







2

2





13-18

of

15 bullbull







13-18

16 bullbull



13-18

17 bullbull



13-18

18 bullbull






CONCLUSION


REFERENCES



13-18

19 bullbull







Abstract








19-21

20 bullbull








19-21

21 bullbull















19-21

22 bullbull






Abstract





22-27

23 bullbull
















22-27

24 bullbull








22-27

25 bullbull



22-27

26 bullbull



22-27

27 bullbull


Dhuka et al (1992)



REFERENCES










22-27

28 bullbull






Abstract






28-33

29 bullbull








28-33

30 bullbull








28-33

31 bullbull







28-33

32 bullbull


REFERENCES

















ACKNOWLEDGEMENT


28-33

33 bullbull












28-33

34 bullbull








Abstract




INTRODUCTION




34-45

35 bullbull







Plant powder




34-45

36 bullbull







Contact toxicity




34-45

37 bullbull



Repellency



Fumigant toxicity





34-45

38 bullbull


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT






34-45

39 bullbull




34-45

40 bullbull


41 bullbull



34-45

42 bullbull



34-45

43 bullbull



34-45

44 bullbull





















34-45

45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34





2 bullbull





1-8

3 bullbull






1-8

4 bullbull




1-8

5 bullbull




1-8

6 bullbull



1-8

7 bullbull



1-8

8 bullbull











1-8

9 bullbull






Abstract


INTRODUCTION





9-12

10 bullbull








Interaction Effects


REFERENCES






9-12

11 bullbull


ble

1 E

ffec

ts o

f Nitr

ogen

and

Sul

phur

leve

ls o

n yi

eld

yie

ld a

ttri

bute

s and

qua

lity

of R

ajm

ash

DA

S =

Day

s Aft

er S

owin

g9-12

12 bullbull






IAS BHU Varansi


9-12

13 bullbull








Abstract






13-18

14 bullbull







2

2





13-18

of

15 bullbull







13-18

16 bullbull



13-18

17 bullbull



13-18

18 bullbull






CONCLUSION


REFERENCES



13-18

19 bullbull







Abstract








19-21

20 bullbull








19-21

21 bullbull















19-21

22 bullbull






Abstract





22-27

23 bullbull
















22-27

24 bullbull








22-27

25 bullbull



22-27

26 bullbull



22-27

27 bullbull


Dhuka et al (1992)



REFERENCES










22-27

28 bullbull






Abstract






28-33

29 bullbull








28-33

30 bullbull








28-33

31 bullbull







28-33

32 bullbull


REFERENCES

















ACKNOWLEDGEMENT


28-33

33 bullbull












28-33

34 bullbull








Abstract




INTRODUCTION




34-45

35 bullbull







Plant powder




34-45

36 bullbull







Contact toxicity




34-45

37 bullbull



Repellency



Fumigant toxicity





34-45

38 bullbull


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT






34-45

39 bullbull




34-45

40 bullbull


41 bullbull



34-45

42 bullbull



34-45

43 bullbull



34-45

44 bullbull





















34-45

45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34





3 bullbull






1-8

4 bullbull




1-8

5 bullbull




1-8

6 bullbull



1-8

7 bullbull



1-8

8 bullbull











1-8

9 bullbull






Abstract


INTRODUCTION





9-12

10 bullbull








Interaction Effects


REFERENCES






9-12

11 bullbull


ble

1 E

ffec

ts o

f Nitr

ogen

and

Sul

phur

leve

ls o

n yi

eld

yie

ld a

ttri

bute

s and

qua

lity

of R

ajm

ash

DA

S =

Day

s Aft

er S

owin

g9-12

12 bullbull






IAS BHU Varansi


9-12

13 bullbull








Abstract






13-18

14 bullbull







2

2





13-18

of

15 bullbull







13-18

16 bullbull



13-18

17 bullbull



13-18

18 bullbull






CONCLUSION


REFERENCES



13-18

19 bullbull







Abstract








19-21

20 bullbull








19-21

21 bullbull















19-21

22 bullbull






Abstract





22-27

23 bullbull
















22-27

24 bullbull








22-27

25 bullbull



22-27

26 bullbull



22-27

27 bullbull


Dhuka et al (1992)



REFERENCES










22-27

28 bullbull






Abstract






28-33

29 bullbull








28-33

30 bullbull








28-33

31 bullbull







28-33

32 bullbull


REFERENCES

















ACKNOWLEDGEMENT


28-33

33 bullbull












28-33

34 bullbull








Abstract




INTRODUCTION




34-45

35 bullbull







Plant powder




34-45

36 bullbull







Contact toxicity




34-45

37 bullbull



Repellency



Fumigant toxicity





34-45

38 bullbull


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT






34-45

39 bullbull




34-45

40 bullbull


41 bullbull



34-45

42 bullbull



34-45

43 bullbull



34-45

44 bullbull





















34-45

45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34





4 bullbull




1-8

5 bullbull




1-8

6 bullbull



1-8

7 bullbull



1-8

8 bullbull











1-8

9 bullbull






Abstract


INTRODUCTION





9-12

10 bullbull








Interaction Effects


REFERENCES






9-12

11 bullbull


ble

1 E

ffec

ts o

f Nitr

ogen

and

Sul

phur

leve

ls o

n yi

eld

yie

ld a

ttri

bute

s and

qua

lity

of R

ajm

ash

DA

S =

Day

s Aft

er S

owin

g9-12

12 bullbull






IAS BHU Varansi


9-12

13 bullbull








Abstract






13-18

14 bullbull







2

2





13-18

of

15 bullbull







13-18

16 bullbull



13-18

17 bullbull



13-18

18 bullbull






CONCLUSION


REFERENCES



13-18

19 bullbull







Abstract








19-21

20 bullbull








19-21

21 bullbull















19-21

22 bullbull






Abstract





22-27

23 bullbull
















22-27

24 bullbull








22-27

25 bullbull



22-27

26 bullbull



22-27

27 bullbull


Dhuka et al (1992)



REFERENCES










22-27

28 bullbull






Abstract






28-33

29 bullbull








28-33

30 bullbull








28-33

31 bullbull







28-33

32 bullbull


REFERENCES

















ACKNOWLEDGEMENT


28-33

33 bullbull












28-33

34 bullbull








Abstract




INTRODUCTION




34-45

35 bullbull







Plant powder




34-45

36 bullbull







Contact toxicity




34-45

37 bullbull



Repellency



Fumigant toxicity





34-45

38 bullbull


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT






34-45

39 bullbull




34-45

40 bullbull


41 bullbull



34-45

42 bullbull



34-45

43 bullbull



34-45

44 bullbull





















34-45

45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34





5 bullbull




1-8

6 bullbull



1-8

7 bullbull



1-8

8 bullbull











1-8

9 bullbull






Abstract


INTRODUCTION





9-12

10 bullbull








Interaction Effects


REFERENCES






9-12

11 bullbull


ble

1 E

ffec

ts o

f Nitr

ogen

and

Sul

phur

leve

ls o

n yi

eld

yie

ld a

ttri

bute

s and

qua

lity

of R

ajm

ash

DA

S =

Day

s Aft

er S

owin

g9-12

12 bullbull






IAS BHU Varansi


9-12

13 bullbull








Abstract






13-18

14 bullbull







2

2





13-18

of

15 bullbull







13-18

16 bullbull



13-18

17 bullbull



13-18

18 bullbull






CONCLUSION


REFERENCES



13-18

19 bullbull







Abstract








19-21

20 bullbull








19-21

21 bullbull















19-21

22 bullbull






Abstract





22-27

23 bullbull
















22-27

24 bullbull








22-27

25 bullbull



22-27

26 bullbull



22-27

27 bullbull


Dhuka et al (1992)



REFERENCES










22-27

28 bullbull






Abstract






28-33

29 bullbull








28-33

30 bullbull








28-33

31 bullbull







28-33

32 bullbull


REFERENCES

















ACKNOWLEDGEMENT


28-33

33 bullbull












28-33

34 bullbull








Abstract




INTRODUCTION




34-45

35 bullbull







Plant powder




34-45

36 bullbull







Contact toxicity




34-45

37 bullbull



Repellency



Fumigant toxicity





34-45

38 bullbull


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT






34-45

39 bullbull




34-45

40 bullbull


41 bullbull



34-45

42 bullbull



34-45

43 bullbull



34-45

44 bullbull





















34-45

45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34





6 bullbull



1-8

7 bullbull



1-8

8 bullbull











1-8

9 bullbull






Abstract


INTRODUCTION





9-12

10 bullbull








Interaction Effects


REFERENCES






9-12

11 bullbull


ble

1 E

ffec

ts o

f Nitr

ogen

and

Sul

phur

leve

ls o

n yi

eld

yie

ld a

ttri

bute

s and

qua

lity

of R

ajm

ash

DA

S =

Day

s Aft

er S

owin

g9-12

12 bullbull






IAS BHU Varansi


9-12

13 bullbull








Abstract






13-18

14 bullbull







2

2





13-18

of

15 bullbull







13-18

16 bullbull



13-18

17 bullbull



13-18

18 bullbull






CONCLUSION


REFERENCES



13-18

19 bullbull







Abstract








19-21

20 bullbull








19-21

21 bullbull















19-21

22 bullbull






Abstract





22-27

23 bullbull
















22-27

24 bullbull








22-27

25 bullbull



22-27

26 bullbull



22-27

27 bullbull


Dhuka et al (1992)



REFERENCES










22-27

28 bullbull






Abstract






28-33

29 bullbull








28-33

30 bullbull








28-33

31 bullbull







28-33

32 bullbull


REFERENCES

















ACKNOWLEDGEMENT


28-33

33 bullbull












28-33

34 bullbull








Abstract




INTRODUCTION




34-45

35 bullbull







Plant powder




34-45

36 bullbull







Contact toxicity




34-45

37 bullbull



Repellency



Fumigant toxicity





34-45

38 bullbull


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT






34-45

39 bullbull




34-45

40 bullbull


41 bullbull



34-45

42 bullbull



34-45

43 bullbull



34-45

44 bullbull





















34-45

45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34





7 bullbull



1-8

8 bullbull











1-8

9 bullbull






Abstract


INTRODUCTION





9-12

10 bullbull








Interaction Effects


REFERENCES






9-12

11 bullbull


ble

1 E

ffec

ts o

f Nitr

ogen

and

Sul

phur

leve

ls o

n yi

eld

yie

ld a

ttri

bute

s and

qua

lity

of R

ajm

ash

DA

S =

Day

s Aft

er S

owin

g9-12

12 bullbull






IAS BHU Varansi


9-12

13 bullbull








Abstract






13-18

14 bullbull







2

2





13-18

of

15 bullbull







13-18

16 bullbull



13-18

17 bullbull



13-18

18 bullbull






CONCLUSION


REFERENCES



13-18

19 bullbull







Abstract








19-21

20 bullbull








19-21

21 bullbull















19-21

22 bullbull






Abstract





22-27

23 bullbull
















22-27

24 bullbull








22-27

25 bullbull



22-27

26 bullbull



22-27

27 bullbull


Dhuka et al (1992)



REFERENCES










22-27

28 bullbull






Abstract






28-33

29 bullbull








28-33

30 bullbull








28-33

31 bullbull







28-33

32 bullbull


REFERENCES

















ACKNOWLEDGEMENT


28-33

33 bullbull












28-33

34 bullbull








Abstract




INTRODUCTION




34-45

35 bullbull







Plant powder




34-45

36 bullbull







Contact toxicity




34-45

37 bullbull



Repellency



Fumigant toxicity





34-45

38 bullbull


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT






34-45

39 bullbull




34-45

40 bullbull


41 bullbull



34-45

42 bullbull



34-45

43 bullbull



34-45

44 bullbull





















34-45

45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34





8 bullbull











1-8

9 bullbull






Abstract


INTRODUCTION





9-12

10 bullbull








Interaction Effects


REFERENCES






9-12

11 bullbull


ble

1 E

ffec

ts o

f Nitr

ogen

and

Sul

phur

leve

ls o

n yi

eld

yie

ld a

ttri

bute

s and

qua

lity

of R

ajm

ash

DA

S =

Day

s Aft

er S

owin

g9-12

12 bullbull






IAS BHU Varansi


9-12

13 bullbull








Abstract






13-18

14 bullbull







2

2





13-18

of

15 bullbull







13-18

16 bullbull



13-18

17 bullbull



13-18

18 bullbull






CONCLUSION


REFERENCES



13-18

19 bullbull







Abstract








19-21

20 bullbull








19-21

21 bullbull















19-21

22 bullbull






Abstract





22-27

23 bullbull
















22-27

24 bullbull








22-27

25 bullbull



22-27

26 bullbull



22-27

27 bullbull


Dhuka et al (1992)



REFERENCES










22-27

28 bullbull






Abstract






28-33

29 bullbull








28-33

30 bullbull








28-33

31 bullbull







28-33

32 bullbull


REFERENCES

















ACKNOWLEDGEMENT


28-33

33 bullbull












28-33

34 bullbull








Abstract




INTRODUCTION




34-45

35 bullbull







Plant powder




34-45

36 bullbull







Contact toxicity




34-45

37 bullbull



Repellency



Fumigant toxicity





34-45

38 bullbull


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT






34-45

39 bullbull




34-45

40 bullbull


41 bullbull



34-45

42 bullbull



34-45

43 bullbull



34-45

44 bullbull





















34-45

45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34





9 bullbull






Abstract


INTRODUCTION





9-12

10 bullbull








Interaction Effects


REFERENCES






9-12

11 bullbull


ble

1 E

ffec

ts o

f Nitr

ogen

and

Sul

phur

leve

ls o

n yi

eld

yie

ld a

ttri

bute

s and

qua

lity

of R

ajm

ash

DA

S =

Day

s Aft

er S

owin

g9-12

12 bullbull






IAS BHU Varansi


9-12

13 bullbull








Abstract






13-18

14 bullbull







2

2





13-18

of

15 bullbull







13-18

16 bullbull



13-18

17 bullbull



13-18

18 bullbull






CONCLUSION


REFERENCES



13-18

19 bullbull







Abstract








19-21

20 bullbull








19-21

21 bullbull















19-21

22 bullbull






Abstract





22-27

23 bullbull
















22-27

24 bullbull








22-27

25 bullbull



22-27

26 bullbull



22-27

27 bullbull


Dhuka et al (1992)



REFERENCES










22-27

28 bullbull






Abstract






28-33

29 bullbull








28-33

30 bullbull








28-33

31 bullbull







28-33

32 bullbull


REFERENCES

















ACKNOWLEDGEMENT


28-33

33 bullbull












28-33

34 bullbull








Abstract




INTRODUCTION




34-45

35 bullbull







Plant powder




34-45

36 bullbull







Contact toxicity




34-45

37 bullbull



Repellency



Fumigant toxicity





34-45

38 bullbull


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT






34-45

39 bullbull




34-45

40 bullbull


41 bullbull



34-45

42 bullbull



34-45

43 bullbull



34-45

44 bullbull





















34-45

45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34





10 bullbull








Interaction Effects


REFERENCES






9-12

11 bullbull


ble

1 E

ffec

ts o

f Nitr

ogen

and

Sul

phur

leve

ls o

n yi

eld

yie

ld a

ttri

bute

s and

qua

lity

of R

ajm

ash

DA

S =

Day

s Aft

er S

owin

g9-12

12 bullbull






IAS BHU Varansi


9-12

13 bullbull








Abstract






13-18

14 bullbull







2

2





13-18

of

15 bullbull







13-18

16 bullbull



13-18

17 bullbull



13-18

18 bullbull






CONCLUSION


REFERENCES



13-18

19 bullbull







Abstract








19-21

20 bullbull








19-21

21 bullbull















19-21

22 bullbull






Abstract





22-27

23 bullbull
















22-27

24 bullbull








22-27

25 bullbull



22-27

26 bullbull



22-27

27 bullbull


Dhuka et al (1992)



REFERENCES










22-27

28 bullbull






Abstract






28-33

29 bullbull








28-33

30 bullbull








28-33

31 bullbull







28-33

32 bullbull


REFERENCES

















ACKNOWLEDGEMENT


28-33

33 bullbull












28-33

34 bullbull








Abstract




INTRODUCTION




34-45

35 bullbull







Plant powder




34-45

36 bullbull







Contact toxicity




34-45

37 bullbull



Repellency



Fumigant toxicity





34-45

38 bullbull


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT






34-45

39 bullbull




34-45

40 bullbull


41 bullbull



34-45

42 bullbull



34-45

43 bullbull



34-45

44 bullbull





















34-45

45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34





11 bullbull


ble

1 E

ffec

ts o

f Nitr

ogen

and

Sul

phur

leve

ls o

n yi

eld

yie

ld a

ttri

bute

s and

qua

lity

of R

ajm

ash

DA

S =

Day

s Aft

er S

owin

g9-12

12 bullbull






IAS BHU Varansi


9-12

13 bullbull








Abstract






13-18

14 bullbull







2

2





13-18

of

15 bullbull







13-18

16 bullbull



13-18

17 bullbull



13-18

18 bullbull






CONCLUSION


REFERENCES



13-18

19 bullbull







Abstract








19-21

20 bullbull








19-21

21 bullbull















19-21

22 bullbull






Abstract





22-27

23 bullbull
















22-27

24 bullbull








22-27

25 bullbull



22-27

26 bullbull



22-27

27 bullbull


Dhuka et al (1992)



REFERENCES










22-27

28 bullbull






Abstract






28-33

29 bullbull








28-33

30 bullbull








28-33

31 bullbull







28-33

32 bullbull


REFERENCES

















ACKNOWLEDGEMENT


28-33

33 bullbull












28-33

34 bullbull








Abstract




INTRODUCTION




34-45

35 bullbull







Plant powder




34-45

36 bullbull







Contact toxicity




34-45

37 bullbull



Repellency



Fumigant toxicity





34-45

38 bullbull


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT






34-45

39 bullbull




34-45

40 bullbull


41 bullbull



34-45

42 bullbull



34-45

43 bullbull



34-45

44 bullbull





















34-45

45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34





12 bullbull






IAS BHU Varansi


9-12

13 bullbull








Abstract






13-18

14 bullbull







2

2





13-18

of

15 bullbull







13-18

16 bullbull



13-18

17 bullbull



13-18

18 bullbull






CONCLUSION


REFERENCES



13-18

19 bullbull







Abstract








19-21

20 bullbull








19-21

21 bullbull















19-21

22 bullbull






Abstract





22-27

23 bullbull
















22-27

24 bullbull








22-27

25 bullbull



22-27

26 bullbull



22-27

27 bullbull


Dhuka et al (1992)



REFERENCES










22-27

28 bullbull






Abstract






28-33

29 bullbull








28-33

30 bullbull








28-33

31 bullbull







28-33

32 bullbull


REFERENCES

















ACKNOWLEDGEMENT


28-33

33 bullbull












28-33

34 bullbull








Abstract




INTRODUCTION




34-45

35 bullbull







Plant powder




34-45

36 bullbull







Contact toxicity




34-45

37 bullbull



Repellency



Fumigant toxicity





34-45

38 bullbull


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT






34-45

39 bullbull




34-45

40 bullbull


41 bullbull



34-45

42 bullbull



34-45

43 bullbull



34-45

44 bullbull





















34-45

45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34





13 bullbull








Abstract






13-18

14 bullbull







2

2





13-18

of

15 bullbull







13-18

16 bullbull



13-18

17 bullbull



13-18

18 bullbull






CONCLUSION


REFERENCES



13-18

19 bullbull







Abstract








19-21

20 bullbull








19-21

21 bullbull















19-21

22 bullbull






Abstract





22-27

23 bullbull
















22-27

24 bullbull








22-27

25 bullbull



22-27

26 bullbull



22-27

27 bullbull


Dhuka et al (1992)



REFERENCES










22-27

28 bullbull






Abstract






28-33

29 bullbull








28-33

30 bullbull








28-33

31 bullbull







28-33

32 bullbull


REFERENCES

















ACKNOWLEDGEMENT


28-33

33 bullbull












28-33

34 bullbull








Abstract




INTRODUCTION




34-45

35 bullbull







Plant powder




34-45

36 bullbull







Contact toxicity




34-45

37 bullbull



Repellency



Fumigant toxicity





34-45

38 bullbull


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT






34-45

39 bullbull




34-45

40 bullbull


41 bullbull



34-45

42 bullbull



34-45

43 bullbull



34-45

44 bullbull





















34-45

45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34





14 bullbull







2

2





13-18

of

15 bullbull







13-18

16 bullbull



13-18

17 bullbull



13-18

18 bullbull






CONCLUSION


REFERENCES



13-18

19 bullbull







Abstract








19-21

20 bullbull








19-21

21 bullbull















19-21

22 bullbull






Abstract





22-27

23 bullbull
















22-27

24 bullbull








22-27

25 bullbull



22-27

26 bullbull



22-27

27 bullbull


Dhuka et al (1992)



REFERENCES










22-27

28 bullbull






Abstract






28-33

29 bullbull








28-33

30 bullbull








28-33

31 bullbull







28-33

32 bullbull


REFERENCES

















ACKNOWLEDGEMENT


28-33

33 bullbull












28-33

34 bullbull








Abstract




INTRODUCTION




34-45

35 bullbull







Plant powder




34-45

36 bullbull







Contact toxicity




34-45

37 bullbull



Repellency



Fumigant toxicity





34-45

38 bullbull


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT






34-45

39 bullbull




34-45

40 bullbull


41 bullbull



34-45

42 bullbull



34-45

43 bullbull



34-45

44 bullbull





















34-45

45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34





15 bullbull







13-18

16 bullbull



13-18

17 bullbull



13-18

18 bullbull






CONCLUSION


REFERENCES



13-18

19 bullbull







Abstract








19-21

20 bullbull








19-21

21 bullbull















19-21

22 bullbull






Abstract





22-27

23 bullbull
















22-27

24 bullbull








22-27

25 bullbull



22-27

26 bullbull



22-27

27 bullbull


Dhuka et al (1992)



REFERENCES










22-27

28 bullbull






Abstract






28-33

29 bullbull








28-33

30 bullbull








28-33

31 bullbull







28-33

32 bullbull


REFERENCES

















ACKNOWLEDGEMENT


28-33

33 bullbull












28-33

34 bullbull








Abstract




INTRODUCTION




34-45

35 bullbull







Plant powder




34-45

36 bullbull







Contact toxicity




34-45

37 bullbull



Repellency



Fumigant toxicity





34-45

38 bullbull


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT






34-45

39 bullbull




34-45

40 bullbull


41 bullbull



34-45

42 bullbull



34-45

43 bullbull



34-45

44 bullbull





















34-45

45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34





16 bullbull



13-18

17 bullbull



13-18

18 bullbull






CONCLUSION


REFERENCES



13-18

19 bullbull







Abstract








19-21

20 bullbull








19-21

21 bullbull















19-21

22 bullbull






Abstract





22-27

23 bullbull
















22-27

24 bullbull








22-27

25 bullbull



22-27

26 bullbull



22-27

27 bullbull


Dhuka et al (1992)



REFERENCES










22-27

28 bullbull






Abstract






28-33

29 bullbull








28-33

30 bullbull








28-33

31 bullbull







28-33

32 bullbull


REFERENCES

















ACKNOWLEDGEMENT


28-33

33 bullbull












28-33

34 bullbull








Abstract




INTRODUCTION




34-45

35 bullbull







Plant powder




34-45

36 bullbull







Contact toxicity




34-45

37 bullbull



Repellency



Fumigant toxicity





34-45

38 bullbull


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT






34-45

39 bullbull




34-45

40 bullbull


41 bullbull



34-45

42 bullbull



34-45

43 bullbull



34-45

44 bullbull





















34-45

45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34





17 bullbull



13-18

18 bullbull






CONCLUSION


REFERENCES



13-18

19 bullbull







Abstract








19-21

20 bullbull








19-21

21 bullbull















19-21

22 bullbull






Abstract





22-27

23 bullbull
















22-27

24 bullbull








22-27

25 bullbull



22-27

26 bullbull



22-27

27 bullbull


Dhuka et al (1992)



REFERENCES










22-27

28 bullbull






Abstract






28-33

29 bullbull








28-33

30 bullbull








28-33

31 bullbull







28-33

32 bullbull


REFERENCES

















ACKNOWLEDGEMENT


28-33

33 bullbull












28-33

34 bullbull








Abstract




INTRODUCTION




34-45

35 bullbull







Plant powder




34-45

36 bullbull







Contact toxicity




34-45

37 bullbull



Repellency



Fumigant toxicity





34-45

38 bullbull


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT






34-45

39 bullbull




34-45

40 bullbull


41 bullbull



34-45

42 bullbull



34-45

43 bullbull



34-45

44 bullbull





















34-45

45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34





18 bullbull






CONCLUSION


REFERENCES



13-18

19 bullbull







Abstract








19-21

20 bullbull








19-21

21 bullbull















19-21

22 bullbull






Abstract





22-27

23 bullbull
















22-27

24 bullbull








22-27

25 bullbull



22-27

26 bullbull



22-27

27 bullbull


Dhuka et al (1992)



REFERENCES










22-27

28 bullbull






Abstract






28-33

29 bullbull








28-33

30 bullbull








28-33

31 bullbull







28-33

32 bullbull


REFERENCES

















ACKNOWLEDGEMENT


28-33

33 bullbull












28-33

34 bullbull








Abstract




INTRODUCTION




34-45

35 bullbull







Plant powder




34-45

36 bullbull







Contact toxicity




34-45

37 bullbull



Repellency



Fumigant toxicity





34-45

38 bullbull


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT






34-45

39 bullbull




34-45

40 bullbull


41 bullbull



34-45

42 bullbull



34-45

43 bullbull



34-45

44 bullbull





















34-45

45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34





19 bullbull







Abstract








19-21

20 bullbull








19-21

21 bullbull















19-21

22 bullbull






Abstract





22-27

23 bullbull
















22-27

24 bullbull








22-27

25 bullbull



22-27

26 bullbull



22-27

27 bullbull


Dhuka et al (1992)



REFERENCES










22-27

28 bullbull






Abstract






28-33

29 bullbull








28-33

30 bullbull








28-33

31 bullbull







28-33

32 bullbull


REFERENCES

















ACKNOWLEDGEMENT


28-33

33 bullbull












28-33

34 bullbull








Abstract




INTRODUCTION




34-45

35 bullbull







Plant powder




34-45

36 bullbull







Contact toxicity




34-45

37 bullbull



Repellency



Fumigant toxicity





34-45

38 bullbull


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT






34-45

39 bullbull




34-45

40 bullbull


41 bullbull



34-45

42 bullbull



34-45

43 bullbull



34-45

44 bullbull





















34-45

45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34





20 bullbull








19-21

21 bullbull















19-21

22 bullbull






Abstract





22-27

23 bullbull
















22-27

24 bullbull








22-27

25 bullbull



22-27

26 bullbull



22-27

27 bullbull


Dhuka et al (1992)



REFERENCES










22-27

28 bullbull






Abstract






28-33

29 bullbull








28-33

30 bullbull








28-33

31 bullbull







28-33

32 bullbull


REFERENCES

















ACKNOWLEDGEMENT


28-33

33 bullbull












28-33

34 bullbull








Abstract




INTRODUCTION




34-45

35 bullbull







Plant powder




34-45

36 bullbull







Contact toxicity




34-45

37 bullbull



Repellency



Fumigant toxicity





34-45

38 bullbull


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT






34-45

39 bullbull




34-45

40 bullbull


41 bullbull



34-45

42 bullbull



34-45

43 bullbull



34-45

44 bullbull





















34-45

45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34





21 bullbull















19-21

22 bullbull






Abstract





22-27

23 bullbull
















22-27

24 bullbull








22-27

25 bullbull



22-27

26 bullbull



22-27

27 bullbull


Dhuka et al (1992)



REFERENCES










22-27

28 bullbull






Abstract






28-33

29 bullbull








28-33

30 bullbull








28-33

31 bullbull







28-33

32 bullbull


REFERENCES

















ACKNOWLEDGEMENT


28-33

33 bullbull












28-33

34 bullbull








Abstract




INTRODUCTION




34-45

35 bullbull







Plant powder




34-45

36 bullbull







Contact toxicity




34-45

37 bullbull



Repellency



Fumigant toxicity





34-45

38 bullbull


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT






34-45

39 bullbull




34-45

40 bullbull


41 bullbull



34-45

42 bullbull



34-45

43 bullbull



34-45

44 bullbull





















34-45

45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34





22 bullbull






Abstract





22-27

23 bullbull
















22-27

24 bullbull








22-27

25 bullbull



22-27

26 bullbull



22-27

27 bullbull


Dhuka et al (1992)



REFERENCES










22-27

28 bullbull






Abstract






28-33

29 bullbull








28-33

30 bullbull








28-33

31 bullbull







28-33

32 bullbull


REFERENCES

















ACKNOWLEDGEMENT


28-33

33 bullbull












28-33

34 bullbull








Abstract




INTRODUCTION




34-45

35 bullbull







Plant powder




34-45

36 bullbull







Contact toxicity




34-45

37 bullbull



Repellency



Fumigant toxicity





34-45

38 bullbull


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT






34-45

39 bullbull




34-45

40 bullbull


41 bullbull



34-45

42 bullbull



34-45

43 bullbull



34-45

44 bullbull





















34-45

45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34





23 bullbull
















22-27

24 bullbull








22-27

25 bullbull



22-27

26 bullbull



22-27

27 bullbull


Dhuka et al (1992)



REFERENCES










22-27

28 bullbull






Abstract






28-33

29 bullbull








28-33

30 bullbull








28-33

31 bullbull







28-33

32 bullbull


REFERENCES

















ACKNOWLEDGEMENT


28-33

33 bullbull












28-33

34 bullbull








Abstract




INTRODUCTION




34-45

35 bullbull







Plant powder




34-45

36 bullbull







Contact toxicity




34-45

37 bullbull



Repellency



Fumigant toxicity





34-45

38 bullbull


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT






34-45

39 bullbull




34-45

40 bullbull


41 bullbull



34-45

42 bullbull



34-45

43 bullbull



34-45

44 bullbull





















34-45

45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34





24 bullbull








22-27

25 bullbull



22-27

26 bullbull



22-27

27 bullbull


Dhuka et al (1992)



REFERENCES










22-27

28 bullbull






Abstract






28-33

29 bullbull








28-33

30 bullbull








28-33

31 bullbull







28-33

32 bullbull


REFERENCES

















ACKNOWLEDGEMENT


28-33

33 bullbull












28-33

34 bullbull








Abstract




INTRODUCTION




34-45

35 bullbull







Plant powder




34-45

36 bullbull







Contact toxicity




34-45

37 bullbull



Repellency



Fumigant toxicity





34-45

38 bullbull


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT






34-45

39 bullbull




34-45

40 bullbull


41 bullbull



34-45

42 bullbull



34-45

43 bullbull



34-45

44 bullbull





















34-45

45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34





25 bullbull



22-27

26 bullbull



22-27

27 bullbull


Dhuka et al (1992)



REFERENCES










22-27

28 bullbull






Abstract






28-33

29 bullbull








28-33

30 bullbull








28-33

31 bullbull







28-33

32 bullbull


REFERENCES

















ACKNOWLEDGEMENT


28-33

33 bullbull












28-33

34 bullbull








Abstract




INTRODUCTION




34-45

35 bullbull







Plant powder




34-45

36 bullbull







Contact toxicity




34-45

37 bullbull



Repellency



Fumigant toxicity





34-45

38 bullbull


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT






34-45

39 bullbull




34-45

40 bullbull


41 bullbull



34-45

42 bullbull



34-45

43 bullbull



34-45

44 bullbull





















34-45

45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34





26 bullbull



22-27

27 bullbull


Dhuka et al (1992)



REFERENCES










22-27

28 bullbull






Abstract






28-33

29 bullbull








28-33

30 bullbull








28-33

31 bullbull







28-33

32 bullbull


REFERENCES

















ACKNOWLEDGEMENT


28-33

33 bullbull












28-33

34 bullbull








Abstract




INTRODUCTION




34-45

35 bullbull







Plant powder




34-45

36 bullbull







Contact toxicity




34-45

37 bullbull



Repellency



Fumigant toxicity





34-45

38 bullbull


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT






34-45

39 bullbull




34-45

40 bullbull


41 bullbull



34-45

42 bullbull



34-45

43 bullbull



34-45

44 bullbull





















34-45

45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34





27 bullbull


Dhuka et al (1992)



REFERENCES










22-27

28 bullbull






Abstract






28-33

29 bullbull








28-33

30 bullbull








28-33

31 bullbull







28-33

32 bullbull


REFERENCES

















ACKNOWLEDGEMENT


28-33

33 bullbull












28-33

34 bullbull








Abstract




INTRODUCTION




34-45

35 bullbull







Plant powder




34-45

36 bullbull







Contact toxicity




34-45

37 bullbull



Repellency



Fumigant toxicity





34-45

38 bullbull


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT






34-45

39 bullbull




34-45

40 bullbull


41 bullbull



34-45

42 bullbull



34-45

43 bullbull



34-45

44 bullbull





















34-45

45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34





28 bullbull






Abstract






28-33

29 bullbull








28-33

30 bullbull








28-33

31 bullbull







28-33

32 bullbull


REFERENCES

















ACKNOWLEDGEMENT


28-33

33 bullbull












28-33

34 bullbull








Abstract




INTRODUCTION




34-45

35 bullbull







Plant powder




34-45

36 bullbull







Contact toxicity




34-45

37 bullbull



Repellency



Fumigant toxicity





34-45

38 bullbull


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT






34-45

39 bullbull




34-45

40 bullbull


41 bullbull



34-45

42 bullbull



34-45

43 bullbull



34-45

44 bullbull





















34-45

45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34





29 bullbull








28-33

30 bullbull








28-33

31 bullbull







28-33

32 bullbull


REFERENCES

















ACKNOWLEDGEMENT


28-33

33 bullbull












28-33

34 bullbull








Abstract




INTRODUCTION




34-45

35 bullbull







Plant powder




34-45

36 bullbull







Contact toxicity




34-45

37 bullbull



Repellency



Fumigant toxicity





34-45

38 bullbull


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT






34-45

39 bullbull




34-45

40 bullbull


41 bullbull



34-45

42 bullbull



34-45

43 bullbull



34-45

44 bullbull





















34-45

45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34





30 bullbull








28-33

31 bullbull







28-33

32 bullbull


REFERENCES

















ACKNOWLEDGEMENT


28-33

33 bullbull












28-33

34 bullbull








Abstract




INTRODUCTION




34-45

35 bullbull







Plant powder




34-45

36 bullbull







Contact toxicity




34-45

37 bullbull



Repellency



Fumigant toxicity





34-45

38 bullbull


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT






34-45

39 bullbull




34-45

40 bullbull


41 bullbull



34-45

42 bullbull



34-45

43 bullbull



34-45

44 bullbull





















34-45

45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34





31 bullbull







28-33

32 bullbull


REFERENCES

















ACKNOWLEDGEMENT


28-33

33 bullbull












28-33

34 bullbull








Abstract




INTRODUCTION




34-45

35 bullbull







Plant powder




34-45

36 bullbull







Contact toxicity




34-45

37 bullbull



Repellency



Fumigant toxicity





34-45

38 bullbull


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT






34-45

39 bullbull




34-45

40 bullbull


41 bullbull



34-45

42 bullbull



34-45

43 bullbull



34-45

44 bullbull





















34-45

45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34





32 bullbull


REFERENCES

















ACKNOWLEDGEMENT


28-33

33 bullbull












28-33

34 bullbull








Abstract




INTRODUCTION




34-45

35 bullbull







Plant powder




34-45

36 bullbull







Contact toxicity




34-45

37 bullbull



Repellency



Fumigant toxicity





34-45

38 bullbull


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT






34-45

39 bullbull




34-45

40 bullbull


41 bullbull



34-45

42 bullbull



34-45

43 bullbull



34-45

44 bullbull





















34-45

45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34





33 bullbull












28-33

34 bullbull








Abstract




INTRODUCTION




34-45

35 bullbull







Plant powder




34-45

36 bullbull







Contact toxicity




34-45

37 bullbull



Repellency



Fumigant toxicity





34-45

38 bullbull


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT






34-45

39 bullbull




34-45

40 bullbull


41 bullbull



34-45

42 bullbull



34-45

43 bullbull



34-45

44 bullbull





















34-45

45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34





34 bullbull








Abstract




INTRODUCTION




34-45

35 bullbull







Plant powder




34-45

36 bullbull







Contact toxicity




34-45

37 bullbull



Repellency



Fumigant toxicity





34-45

38 bullbull


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT






34-45

39 bullbull




34-45

40 bullbull


41 bullbull



34-45

42 bullbull



34-45

43 bullbull



34-45

44 bullbull





















34-45

45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34





35 bullbull







Plant powder




34-45

36 bullbull







Contact toxicity




34-45

37 bullbull



Repellency



Fumigant toxicity





34-45

38 bullbull


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT






34-45

39 bullbull




34-45

40 bullbull


41 bullbull



34-45

42 bullbull



34-45

43 bullbull



34-45

44 bullbull





















34-45

45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34





36 bullbull







Contact toxicity




34-45

37 bullbull



Repellency



Fumigant toxicity





34-45

38 bullbull


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT






34-45

39 bullbull




34-45

40 bullbull


41 bullbull



34-45

42 bullbull



34-45

43 bullbull



34-45

44 bullbull





















34-45

45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34





37 bullbull



Repellency



Fumigant toxicity





34-45

38 bullbull


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT






34-45

39 bullbull




34-45

40 bullbull


41 bullbull



34-45

42 bullbull



34-45

43 bullbull



34-45

44 bullbull





















34-45

45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34





38 bullbull


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT






34-45

39 bullbull




34-45

40 bullbull


41 bullbull



34-45

42 bullbull



34-45

43 bullbull



34-45

44 bullbull





















34-45

45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34





39 bullbull




34-45

40 bullbull


41 bullbull



34-45

42 bullbull



34-45

43 bullbull



34-45

44 bullbull





















34-45

45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34





40 bullbull


41 bullbull



34-45

42 bullbull



34-45

43 bullbull



34-45

44 bullbull





















34-45

45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34





41 bullbull



34-45

42 bullbull



34-45

43 bullbull



34-45

44 bullbull





















34-45

45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34





42 bullbull



34-45

43 bullbull



34-45

44 bullbull





















34-45

45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34





43 bullbull



34-45

44 bullbull





















34-45

45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34





44 bullbull





















34-45

45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34





45 bullbull




















34-45

46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34





46 bullbull



PRINTING CHARGE




CONTACT US

REMITTANCE




Benefit to Authors










June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34








June- 2013

1

2

3

4

1

9

13

19




7 34





International ournal of Agricultural Science & · PDF filetehnology whih inludes atmosheri,...

Documents

Transcript of International ournal of Agricultural Science & · PDF filetehnology whih inludes atmosheri,...