Thumbnail Image

Anand Agricultural University, Anand

Anand Agricultural University (AAU) was established in 2004 at Anand with the support of the Government of Gujarat, Act No.(Guj 5 of 2004) dated April 29, 2004. Caved out of the erstwhile Gujarat Agricultural University (GAU), the dream institution of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and Dr. K. M. Munshi, the AAU was set up to provide support to the farming community in three facets namely education, research and extension activities in Agriculture, Horticulture Engineering, product Processing and Home Science. At present there seven Colleges, seventeen Research Centers and six Extension Education Institute working in nine districts of Gujarat namely Ahmedabad, Anand, Dahod, Kheda, Panchmahal, Vadodara, Mahisagar, Botad and Chhotaudepur AAU's activities have expanded to span newer commodity sectors such as soil health card, bio-diesel, medicinal plants apart from the mandatory ones like rice, maize, tobacco, vegetable crops, fruit crops, forage crops, animal breeding, nutrition and dairy products etc. the core of AAU's operating philosophy however, continues to create the partnership between the rural people and committed academic as the basic for sustainable rural development. In pursuing its various programmes AAU's overall mission is to promote sustainable growth and economic independence in rural society. AAU aims to do this through education, research and extension education. Thus, AAU works towards the empowerment of the farmers.

Browse

19941
Reset filters
Subject: Agricultural Statistics and Informatics × Author: Prajapati, Babulal H. × End date: 1999 × Start date: 1990 × Thesis Type: Ph.D ×
Reset filters

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    ThesisItemOpen Access
    ON COMPARISON OF SOME STABILITY ANALYSIS MODELS
    (AAU, Anand, 1994) Prajapati, Babulal H.; Patel, N. M.
    The genotype x environment interaction is of raajor concern. in plant breeding prograroraes. Number of statistical methods have been developed to analyse G x E interaction and thereby to evaluate phenotypic stability of genotypes. However, the literature on comparison of stability analysis models is very scanty. Literature on stability analysis of genotypes of various crops tested over space and time is available in plenty. But such information is not available 'very specifically for genotypes of any crop tested under varying weed management aspects. The present study, therefore, was undertaken to compare some stability analysis models including safety-first indices empirically. For this purpose nine genotypes of pearl millet were screened under four weed management treatments viz., no weeding, hand weeding and herbicide (atrazine) at two levels during the iiMrll season of the years 1990, 1991 and 1992 at Anand The genotypes tested were GHB 27, GHB 30, GHB 32,- GHB 181, GHB 183, GHB 184, GHB 229, MH 179 and BK 560. The data on grain yield, dry fodder yield, plant stand, plant height, earhead length and weed counts were recorded at harvest and analysed. Three stability analysis models proposed by Eberhart and Russell (1966), Perkins and Jinks (1968a) and Freeman and Perkins (1971) were compared empirically for their efficiency. Safety-first indices were also attempted for the purpose. Differential response of genotypes to environment was observed in individual year as well as in pooled analysis for grain and dry fodder yield. Ranking pattern of genotypes based on stability parameters viz., bi and Szdi was similar under Eberhart and Russell (1966) and Perkins and Jinks (1968a) models; Freeman and Perkins (1971) model deviated from Eberhart and Russell and Perkins and Jinks models in this respect. Eberhart and Russell model (1966) was considered as better from precision and computation convenience. Safety-first indices studied had limited practical utility. The environment-wise (weed management treatmentwise) analysis sliowed variable response of genotypes to weed control treatments. GHB 229 was high yielding stable genotype in no weeding and hand weeding environments but not under herbicide application, MH 179 appeared high yielding and stable under herbicide application for weed control conditions. "No weeding no herbicide application" practice as cost saving agronomic practice can be advocated if genotype like GHB 229 is made available to the farmers. This hybrid is high yielding and stable in performance.