AUCTORES
Globalize your Research
Research Article
*Corresponding Author: S. A. Dar, Dryland Agriculture Research Station, SKUAST-K, Srinagar, (J&K).
Citation: S. A. Dar, M. H. Khan, Junaid Hussain, N. A. Dar, B. A. Alie (2023), Association and Variability of Morphological, Yield and Yield Attributing Traits in Mungbean [Vigna ridiata (L.) Wilezek], J New Medical Innovations and Research, 4(2);10.31579/2767-7370/038
Copyright: © 2023, M. H. Khan. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Received: 05 April 2023 | Accepted: 14 April 2023 | Published: 24 April 2023
Keywords: variability; correlation coefficient; path analysis; mungbean
The efficacy of selection process is greatly enhanced by using appropriate selection indices. The knowledge of the genetic variability and relationship among various traits affecting seed yield is essential for crop improvement. The present study was undertaken to evaluate fifty-one diverse genotypes of mungbean for the estimation of genetic variability, heritability & genetic advance, correlation coefficient for eleven traits and their association level with yield. Results of the analysis of variance revealed significant differences for all the characters studied and thereby offering an ample opportunity for selecting suitable genotypes with desired traits. Phenotypic coefficients of variation were greater in magnitude over the respective genotypic coefficient of variation. High to moderate estimates of heritability coupled with higher genetic advance as per cent of mean was observed for number of pods per plant, seeds per pod, biological yield per plant and seed yield per plant indicating the role of additive gene action in the expression of these characters. Analysis of correlation revealed, that the magnitude of genotypic correlation coefficients was higher than the phenotypic correlation coefficients suggesting the existence of inherent association among the traits studied. Seed yield was found to be positively correlated with primary branches per plant, number of pods per plant, number of seeds per pod and biological yield per plant. Path coefficient analysis revealed the importance of pods per plant, number of seeds per pod while the highest negative direct effect was recorded for harvest index.
Pulses are excellent option of dietary protein. Pulses when used as food with other cereals they definitely meet the requirement of a balanced diet. Mungbean (Vigna radiata L.) is a vital and important pulse crop also known as greengram, is an excellent source of easily digestible proteins with low flatulence which complements the staple rice diet in Asia. In India, it is the third most important pulse crop after chickpea and pigeonpea. It is grown mainly as a kharif season crop. However, its cultivation in rabi season is restricted to the eastern and southern parts of the country. Seed yield in mungbean is a complex character like other crop determined by various components. A clear knowledge of variability in various quantitative characters existing in the breeding material helps plant breeder for selecting superior genotypes on the basis of different genetic parameters such as genotypic variation, heritability, genetic gain, etc to understand the nature and magnitude of variation for the available plant characters. Hence it is necessary to estimate the relative amount of genetic and non-genetic variability exhibited by the traits under the study (Moose and Mumm, 2008). Yield is dependent on various characters and environmental conditions that exist during crop growth. It is, therefore, essential to study association of characters among themselves and with yield of crop. Genotypic correlation provides a measure of genotypic association between two characters and helps to identify more useful relationship between characters. Indirect association becomes complex and important when a number of variables are included in the study of correlation. In such cases more defined technique as path coefficient analysis helps to find out direct and indirect causes of character association. Every component character has a direct and indirect effect on yield. If correlation is due to direct effect, it reflects true relationship and selection is practiced for such a character for improving the yield. In case, if the effect is indirect through another component trait, the breeder has to select the latter trait through which indirect effect is exerted. Presence of high variability in this crop offers much scope for its improvement. Hence, an attempt was made to assess the genetic variability, heriabilty, genetic advance, correlation and path analysis in respect to desirable traits in fifty one genotypes of mungbean which will help in the selection of promising lines for further breeding programme and to explore high yielding lines of mungbean
The experiment was under taken at Research Farm of Division of Genetics and Plant Breeding (GPB), Faculty of Agriculture (FoA), wadura, Sopore, Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural sciences and Technology Kashmir (SKUAST-K), to evaluate the 51 genotypes of mungbean for genetic variability with respect to yield and yield contributing traits and maturity. The experiment was laid out in Randomized Block Design with 3 replications. Each genotype was sown at the spacing of 30 cm between rows and 10 cm between plants and about two seeds were dibbled at each hill to assure germination. Uniform standard plant population was maintained throughout the experiment. Standard recommended package of practices was followed to raise a good crop. Observations for all the traits (except days to 50% flowering and days to maturity) were recorded by taking ten randomly selected plants from each replication. Days to 50% flowering and days to maturity were computed on plot basis. The data of eleven morphological traits viz days to maturity, number of branches plant-1, Plant height (cm), Pod length (cm), number of pods plant-1, number of seeds pod-1,100-seed weight (g), Seed yield plant-1 (g), Biological yield per plant (g) and Harvest index (%) were recorded at the time of maturity, whereas observation on days to 50% flowering was recorded for different genotypes when they attained 50% flowering stage. Analysis of variance for the observations recorded on different traits was carried out as per the standard procedure of Box et al (1978). Genotypic and Phenotypic coefficients of variability were estimated according to Johnson et al (1955). Heritability in broad sense and Genetic advance were worked out as per the procedures of Burton and Dewane (1953), Johnson et al (1955), respectively. Estimation of phenotypic and genotypic correlation suggested by Fisher (1954) and Al-Jibouri et al (1958). Path coefficient of variation was computed as per the method given by Dewey and Lu (1959).
Analysis of variance and mean performance
Since, yield is governed by polygenes with small, similar and cumulative effects and highly influenced by environment, selection based on yield alone is not effective. The breeders apply indirect selection on yield through selection of yield attributes with high heritability so that environmental influence can be minimized.
The mean sum of squares with respect morphological traits has been given in (Table-1).
| Source of variation | df | Mean squares | ||||||||||
| DFF | DM | PH (cm) | PBPP | NPPP | PL | NSPP | 100-SW | SYPP | BYPP | HI | ||
| Replications | 2 | 260.784 | 731.314 | 1730.693 | 3.549 | 117.849 | 12.414 | 8.471 | 0.042 | 41.700 | 228.629 | 29.166 |
| Treatment | 50 | 19.071** | 23.038** | 343.284** | 1.985* | 49.971** | 13.223** | 14.957** | 2.033** | 36.756** | 137.251** | 43.756** |
| Error | 100 | 3.104 | 2.694 | 13.579 | 0.306 | 3.356 | 2.027 | 1.031 | 0.166 | 4.194 | 14.121 | 4.973 |
**Significant at 1% level *Significant at 5% level
DFF - Days to 50% flowering (days), DM - Days to maturity (days), PH - Plant height (cm), PBPP – number of Primary branches per plant, NPPP – Number of Pods per plant,PL - Pod length (cm), NSPP - Number of seeds per pod,100-SW - 100 seed weight (g), SYPP - Seed yield per plant (g), BYPP - Biological yield per plant (g),HI - Harvest index (%),
Table-1: Analysis of variance(Mean Squares)for the eleven characters of Mungbean genotypes
The results revealed that the mungbean genotypes differed significantly for all the traits viz days to 50% flowering, days to maturity ,number of branches plant-1, Plant height (cm), Pod length (cm),number of pods plant-1, number of seeds pod-1,100-seed weight (g),Seed yield plant-1(g),Biological yield plant-1 (g) and Harvest index (%) indicating the presence of sufficient variability and all the genotypes differed from each other in respect of characters, which open a way for improvement in the material through selection. Similar finding was also reported by Gul et al. (2007), Singh et al. (2012), Srivastava and Singh (2012), Javed et al. (2014) and Bisht et al. (2014).
The means performance of the genotypes showed a wide range of variability for all the parameters studied (Table-2).
| Characters | Mean ± SE | Range | CV (%) |
| Days to 50% flowering | 42.76±0.19 | 38.00-47.00 | 4.12 |
| Days to maturity | 70.78±0.18 | 65.67-75.66 | 2.32 |
| Plant height (cm) | 78.26±0.44 | 61.00-114.00 | 4.71 |
| Primary branches per plant | 2.31±0.47 | 1.33-3.66 | 23.95 |
| Number of pods per plant | 11.97±1.06 | 6.67-23.00 | 15.30 |
| Pod length (cm) | 8.28±0.06 | 5.97-11.70 | 17.19 |
| Number of seeds per pod | 11.55±0.76 | 8.00-15.67 | 8.79 |
| 100 seed weight (g) | 5.00±0.15 | 4.17-6.83 | 8.15 |
| Seed yield per plant (g) | 6.92±0.75 | 3.34-18.08 | 29.59 |
| Biological yield per plant (g) | 19.31±2.25 | 9.63-40.33 | 19.46 |
| Harvest index (%) | 35.60±2.42 | 30.95-45.99 | 6.26 |
Table-2: Range Mean and co-efficient of variability for different traits of Mungbean
The variation was highest for Plant height (cm) followed by biological yield per plant (g), number of pods per plant and the seed yield /plant(g). This may be due to the existence of diversity in genotypes evaluated. The range and coefficient of variation were higher for seed yield and number of branches/plant, and medium to low values were observed for biological yield per plant (g), Pod length (cm), number of pods plant-1, number of seeds pod-1, 100-seed weight (g), Harvest index (%), Plant height (cm) and days to flowering/ maturity. Coefficient of variation was low which indicated that most of the genotypes were having average height and mass selection would be effective for shorter height. Similar finding was also reported by Ahmad et al. (2015), Easwari and Rao (2006), and Payasi (2015).
Coefficients of variability
Genotypic and phenotypic coefficients of variability are of greater importance in determining the extent of variability present within germplasm. The value of phenotypic coefficient of variation was observed higher than genotypic coefficient of variation for all characters indicated that environment had important role in influencing the expression of these characters (Table-3). High PCV and GCV were observed for seed yield per plant (56.05/47.60), primary branches per plant (40.27/32.38), pods per plant (36.31/32.93) and biological yield per plant (38.46/33.17) indicating that improvement could be possible through selection of these traits. Similar results were also reported by Panigrahi et al (2014), Konda et al (2009), Pervin et al. (2007), and Suresh et al. (2010), While as moderate PCV and GCV were recorded for pod length (28.98/23.33), seeds per pod (20.62/18.65) and 100-seed weight (17.75/15.77). The low PCV and GCV were recorded for days to 50% flowering (6.78/5.39) and days to maturity (4.34/3.67). Low to moderate GCV and PCV values indicated the influence of the environment on these traits and limited scope for improvement by selection. The results revealed that genotypic coefficient of variation was close to that of phenotypic variation for days to 50% flowering, days to maturity and harvest index indicating that phenotypic coefficient of variation was largely due to genetic differences and less environmental influence. Similar results were also reported by Das and Baru (2015), (Raselmiah et al. (2016) Tabasum et al. (2010), More et al. (2016) and Usharani et al. (2016). However, considerable difference was observed between GCV and PCV value for primary branches per plant and seed yield per plant indicating role of environment in expression of these traits.
Heritability and Genetic gain
Heritability in a broad sense includes additive and epistatic effects; it is realized only when accompanied by genetic advances. However, GCV with heritability estimates would give the clear picture of the extent of genetic advances for selection. Johnson et al., (1955) had also suggested that high heritability coupled with high genetic advance could be helpful in establishing close relationship between genotype and phenotype.
In the present study, results revealed that the high heritability (bs) was observed for plant height (0.89) followed by pods per plant (0.82) and seeds per pod ((0.81) indicating the less influence of environment on these characters (Table-3). These findings confirm the studies of Rohman and Hussain, 2003; Siddique et al., 2006 and Suresh et al. (2010). The heritability is not sufficient to select the best individual. However, heritability associated with genetic advance is more reliable as compared to only heritability. The high genetic advance as percent of mean was recorded for primary branches per plant (20.37) and biological yield per plant (11.38). Tabasum et al. (2010) and Yaqoob et al., 2010. High heritability coupled with high genetic advance as percent of mean indicated that the presence of additive genes for better selection plant height, pods per plant, seed yield per plant, primary branches per plant, 100-seed weight and biological yield per plant. Moderate to high heritability and low genetic advance were recorded for primary branches per plant, days to 50% flowering, seeds per pod and 100-seed weight shows of non-additive gene action and selection may not be effective. These findings confirm the studies of Siddique et al., 2006; Yaqoob et al., 2010, Firoz et al., 2006 and Rahim et al., 2010.
| Characters | σ2g | σ2p | GCV (%) | PCV (%) | h2(b) | GA | GA as % of mean |
| Days to 50% flowering | 5.322 | 8.426 | 5.395 | 6.789 | 63.16 | 3.78 | 8.83 |
| Days to maturity | 6.781 | 9.475 | 3.679 | 4.349 | 71.57 | 4.54 | 6.41 |
| Plant height (cm) | 109.902 | 123.481 | 13.396 | 14.199 | 89.00 | 20.37 | 26.03 |
| Primary branches per plant | 0.560 | 0.866 | 32.386 | 40.278 | 64.65 | 1.24 | 53.64 |
| Pods per plant | 15.538 | 18.894 | 32.931 | 36.314 | 82.24 | 7.36 | 61.52 |
| Pod length (cm) | 3.732 | 5.759 | 23.331 | 28.983 | 64.80 | 3.20 | 38.69 |
| Seeds per pod | 4.642 | 5.673 | 18.654 | 20.622 | 81.83 | 4.01 | 34.76 |
| 100 seed weight (g) | 0.622 | 0.788 | 15.778 | 17.758 | 78.94 | 1.44 | 28.88 |
| Seed yield per plant (g) | 10.854 | 15.048 | 47.609 | 56.057 | 72.13 | 5.76 | 83.29 |
| Biological yield per plant (g) | 41.043 | 55.164 | 33.177 | 38.463 | 74.40 | 11.38 | 58.95 |
| Harvest index (%) | 12.928 | 17.901 | 10.100 | 11.885 | 72.22 | 6.29 | 17.68 |
σ2g = Genotypic variance, σ2p = Phenotypic variance, GCV = Genotypic coefficient of variance, PCV = Phenotypic coefficient of variance, h2(b) = Heritability (Broad sense), GA = Genetic advance, GAM = Genetic advance as per cent mean.
Table -3: Estimation of genetic variability parameters for eleven characters in Mungbean
| Character | DFF | DM | PH | PBPP | NPPP | PL | NSPP | 100-SW | BYPP | HI | GYPP |
| DFF | 1.000 | 0.405** | 0.067 | -0.026 | 0.124 | -0.175 | -0.011 | -0.16 | -0.364** | 0.0494 | -0.067 |
| DM | 0.544** | 1.000 | 0.168* | -0.038 | 0.323 | -0.144 | -0.061 | -0.026 | -0.27** | 0.196* | 0.103 |
| PH | -0.004 | 0.190* | 1.000 | -0.002 | 0.038 | 0.348** | 0.005 | -0.437** | -0.196* | 0.406** | -0.051 |
| PBPP | -0.075 | -0.074 | -0.009 | 1.000 | 0.209** | 0.126 | 0.243** | 0.077 | 0.164* | -0.021 | 0.290** |
| NPPP | 0.198* | 0.386** | 0.051 | 0.270** | 1.000 | -0.0118 | 0.162* | -0.112 | 0.013 | 0.040 | 0.629** |
| PL | -0.246** | -0.13 | -0.457** | 0.153 | 0.050 | 1.000 | 0.248** | 0.347** | 0.054 | -0.064 | 0.053 |
| NSPP | 0.016 | 0.048 | 0.046 | 0.364** | 0.162* | 0.308** | 1.000 | -0.135 | -0.019 | 0.091 | 0.171* |
| 100-SW | -0.233* | -0.026 | -0.505** | 0.078 | -0.128 | 0.648** | -0.157 | 1.000 | 0.297** | -0.107 | 0.108 |
| BYPP | -0.424** | -0.295** | -0.231** | 0.248** | -0.015 | 0.07 | -0.044 | 0.460** | 1.000 | 0.012 | 0.287** |
| HI | 0.040 | 0.328** | 0.65** | -0.064 | 0.070 | -0.040 | 0.114 | -0.162* | 0.038 | 1.000 | -0.031 |
| GYPP | -0.068 | 0.128 | -0.085 | 0.296** | 0.694** | 0.057 | 0.171* | 0.112 | 0.428** | -0.063 | 1.000 |
**Significant at 1% level *Significant at 5% level
DFF - Days to 50% flowering (days), DM - Days to maturity (days), PH - Plant height (cm), PBPP - Primary branches per plant (No.), NPPP - Pods per plant (No.), PL - Pod length (cm), NSPP - Number of seeds per pod (No.), 100-SW - 100 seed weight (g), SYPP - Seed yield per plant (g), BYPP - Biological yield per plant (g), HI - Harvest index (%).
Table-4: Phenotypic (above diagonal) and genotypic (below diagonal) correlation among various characters in Mungbean
| Characters | DFF | DM | PH | PBPP | NCPP | NPPP | PL | NSPP | 100-SW | PC | BYPP | HI | Correlation with SY |
| DFF | -0.163 | 0.195 | -0.001 | 0.016 | -0.143 | 0.196 | 0.068 | 0.006 | -0.030 | -0.006 | -0.240 | -0.020 | -0.068 |
| DM | -0.089 | 0.359 | 0.028 | 0.016 | -0.265 | 0.383 | 0.036 | -0.017 | -0.003 | 0.013 | -0.167 | -0.164 | 0.128 |
| PH | 0.007 | 0.068 | 0.146 | 0.002 | 0.020 | 0.051 | 0.127 | 0.017 | -0.065 | 0.004 | -0.131 | -0.325 | -0.085 |
| PBPP | 0.012 | -0.027 | 0.013 | -0.214 | 0.028 | 0.267 | -0.043 | 0.132 | 0.009 | -0.041 | 0.140 | 0.040 | 0.296** |
| NPPP | -0.032 | 0.138 | 0.007 | -0.058 | -0.380 | 0.992 | 0.014 | 0.059 | -0.017 | 0.017 | -0.009 | -0.035 | 0.654** |
| PL | 0.040 | -0.047 | -0.066 | -0.033 | 0.103 | -0.049 | -0.278 | 0.112 | 0.083 | 0.019 | 0.153 | 0.021 | 0.057 |
| NSPP | -0.003 | -0.017 | 0.007 | -0.078 | -0.014 | 0.161 | -0.086 | 0.363 | -0.020 | -0.009 | -0.025 | -0.107 | 0.171* |
| 100-SW | 0.004 | -0.009 | -0.073 | -0.105 | 0.087 | -0.127 | -0.180 | -0.057 | 0.129 | -0.020 | 0.260 | 0.081 | 0.112 |
| BYPP | 0.069 | -0.106 | -0.034 | -0.053 | 0.049 | -0.015 | -0.075 | 0.016 | 0.059 | 0.003 | 0.566 | -0.019 | 0.428** |
| HI | -0.007 | 0.118 | 0.094 | 0.014 | 0.028 | 0.069 | 0.011 | 0.077 | -0.020 | 0.032 | 0.021 | -0.501 | -0.063 |
Table-5: Estimates of direct (bold values) and indirect effects at genotypic level between yield and its components in Mungbean
DFF - Days to 50% flowering (days), DM - Days to maturity (days), PH - Plant height (cm), PBPP - Primary branches per plant (No.), NCPP - Clusters per plant (No.), NPPP - Pods per plant (No.), PL - Pod length (cm), NSPP - Number of seeds per pod (No.), 100-SW - 100 seed weight (g), SYPP - Seed yield per plant (g), BYPP - Biological yield per plant (g), HI - Harvest index (%), PC - Protein content (%)
| Characters | DFF | DM | PH | PBPP | NCPP | NPPP | PL | NSPP | 100-SW | PC | BYPP | HI | Correlation with SY |
| DFF | -0.064 | -0.017 | -0.003 | -0.003 | 0.021 | 0.070 | 0.016 | 0.001 | -0.029 | 0.000 | -0.071 | -0.002 | -0.067 |
| DM | -0.026 | -0.043 | 0.007 | 0.005 | -0.040 | 0.183 | 0.013 | -0.003 | -0.005 | 0.001 | -0.053 | -0.006 | 0.103 |
| PH | 0.004 | 0.007 | 0.041 | 0.000 | -0.005 | 0.022 | 0.031 | 0.000 | -0.079 | 0.000 | -0.380 | -0.012 | -0.051 |
| PBPP | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.000 | 0.132 | -0.004 | 0.118 | 0.011 | -0.010 | 0.014 | -0.005 | 0.032 | 0.001 | 0.290* |
| NPPP | -0.008 | -0.014 | 0.002 | 0.028 | 0.065 | 0.565 | 0.001 | 0.007 | 0.020 | 0.002 | 0.003 | -0.001 | 0.629** |
| PL | 0.011 | -0.047 | -0.066 | 0.033 | 0.103 | -0.049 | -0.278 | 0.112 | 0.083 | 0.018 | 0.153 | 0.021 | 0.053 |
| NSPP | -0.003 | -0.017 | 0.007 | -0.078 | -0.014 | 0.161 | -0.085 | 0.363 | -0.020 | -0.009 | -0.025 | -0.107 | 0.171** |
| 100-SW | 0.010 | 0.001 | -0.018 | -0.010 | -0.015 | -0.063 | -0.049 | -0.005 | 0.180 | -0.002 | 0.058 | 0.003 | 0.108 |
| BYPP | 0.023 | 0.012 | -0.008 | 0.022 | -0.002 | 0.007 | -0.014 | -0.001 | 0.005 | -0.001 | 0.195 | 0.000 | 0.287* |
| HI | -0.064 | -0.017 | -0.003 | -0.003 | 0.021 | 0.070 | 0.016 | 0.001 | -0.029 | 0.000 | -0.071 | -0.002 | -0.031 |
**Significant at 1% level *Significant at 5% level
DFF - Days to 50% flowering (days), DM - Days to maturity (days), PH - Plant height (cm), PBPP - Primary branches per plant (No.), NPPP - Pods per plant (No.), PL - Pod length (cm), NSPP - Number of seeds per pod (No.), 100-SW - 100 seed weight (g), SYPP - Seed yield per plant (g), BYPP - Biological yield per plant (g), HI - Harvest index (%), PC - Protein content (%).
Table 6: Estimates of direct (bold values) and indirect effects at phenotypic level between yield and its components in Mungbean
Correlation studies
Yield is a complex polygenic trait has a large number of other contributing component traits. Correlation analysis reveals the information on the relationship of dependent variable yield with its independent variables, thus association of various traits would determine their relative significance to improve yield.
In the present study, correlation coefficient on genotypic and phenotypic levels between yield and its components traits have been worked out and the results revealed that there is a strong inherent association between the various traits (Table-4). Seed yield per plant exhibited a highly significantly and positive phenotypic correlation with number of seeds per pod. Thus, number of pods per plant, primary branches per plant, biological yield per plant emerged as a significant and strong association with seed yield /plant while days to 50% flowering and harvest index were negatively associated with seed yield. At the genotypic level, the correlation coefficient (Table-) for these traits was the same in direction but higher in magnitude with seed yield indicating that these traits could be helpful for the improvement of seed yield/plant through improving these traits. Similar results were reported by Hakim 2008; Rahim et al., 2010; Suresh et al. (2013, Chauhan et al. (2007), and Pushpa Reni et al. (2013),
Among other traits, days to 50% flowering exhibited positive and significant genotypic correlation with days to maturity, number of pods per plant and positive and non-significant correlation with harvest index. It showed negative and significant correlation with 100-seed weight, pod length and biological yield per plant. The high association of days to 50 % flowering with these important yield components revealed that selection of early flowering accessions would lead to simultaneous improvement in yield. These results are in agreement with the findings of Titumeer et al. (2014), Khaimichho et al. (2014), Patel et al. (2014), Primary branches per plant was positively and significantly associated with number of pods per plant, number of seeds per pod and biological yield per plant while as seeds per pod showed positive and significant correlation with primary branches per plant, number of pods per plant, pod length and seed yield per plant. (Chauhan et al., 2007; Shivade et al., 2011; Ahmad et al., 2014).
Path coefficient analysis
The correlation values decide only the nature and degree of association existing between two characters. However, this may not give true picture and this might affect the true association of component characters, both in magnitude and direction. Hence it is necessary to partition the correlation coefficient into direct and indirect effects of yield components on seed yield which provided a better index for selection.
The estimate of direct effects revealed that the number of pods per plant depicted maximum positive direct effects on seed yield at phenotypic as well as genotypic level respectively followed by biological yield per plant, number of seeds per plant, days to maturity, plant height and 100 seed weight (Table-5&6). Thus, these traits emerged as the most important direct yield component. So, these results clearly indicated the improvement for seed yield in mungben, major emphasis should be given on these traits. The findings are in accordance with findings of Tabasum et al. (2010), Prasanna et al. (2013), Gadakh et al. (2013), Rathor et al. (2015) and Raselmiah et al. (2016).
Biological yield per plant showed maximum positive indirect effect via days to 50% flowering while; it exhibited maximum negative indirect effect via pod length both at phenotypic and genotypic levels. These results are in contrast with the earlier reports of Singh et al. (2009) and Tabasum et al. (2010) who found maximum negative indirect contribution via., days to 50% flowering.
These results with the above information showed a good amount of variability available for all the agro-morphological traits studied and having considerable scope to select the superior moongbean genotypes. Further studies revealed the primary emphasis should be given for selection of characters like primary branches plant-1, pods plant-1, number of seeds pod-1 and biological yield plant-1 as these traits had a strong positive correlation with seed yield plant-1 with high direct effects and also most important traits for their exploitation through selection for future yield improvement in moongbean.
Clearly Auctoresonline and particularly Psychology and Mental Health Care Journal is dedicated to improving health care services for individuals and populations. The editorial boards' ability to efficiently recognize and share the global importance of health literacy with a variety of stakeholders. Auctoresonline publishing platform can be used to facilitate of optimal client-based services and should be added to health care professionals' repertoire of evidence-based health care resources.
Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Intervention The submission and review process was adequate. However I think that the publication total value should have been enlightened in early fases. Thank you for all.
Journal of Women Health Care and Issues By the present mail, I want to say thank to you and tour colleagues for facilitating my published article. Specially thank you for the peer review process, support from the editorial office. I appreciate positively the quality of your journal.
Journal of Clinical Research and Reports I would be very delighted to submit my testimonial regarding the reviewer board and the editorial office. The reviewer board were accurate and helpful regarding any modifications for my manuscript. And the editorial office were very helpful and supportive in contacting and monitoring with any update and offering help. It was my pleasure to contribute with your promising Journal and I am looking forward for more collaboration.
We would like to thank the Journal of Thoracic Disease and Cardiothoracic Surgery because of the services they provided us for our articles. The peer-review process was done in a very excellent time manner, and the opinions of the reviewers helped us to improve our manuscript further. The editorial office had an outstanding correspondence with us and guided us in many ways. During a hard time of the pandemic that is affecting every one of us tremendously, the editorial office helped us make everything easier for publishing scientific work. Hope for a more scientific relationship with your Journal.
The peer-review process which consisted high quality queries on the paper. I did answer six reviewers’ questions and comments before the paper was accepted. The support from the editorial office is excellent.
Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. I had the experience of publishing a research article recently. The whole process was simple from submission to publication. The reviewers made specific and valuable recommendations and corrections that improved the quality of my publication. I strongly recommend this Journal.
Dr. Katarzyna Byczkowska My testimonial covering: "The peer review process is quick and effective. The support from the editorial office is very professional and friendly. Quality of the Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on cardiology that is useful for other professionals in the field.
Thank you most sincerely, with regard to the support you have given in relation to the reviewing process and the processing of my article entitled "Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of The Prostate Gland: A Review and Update" for publication in your esteemed Journal, Journal of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics". The editorial team has been very supportive.
Testimony of Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology: work with your Reviews has been a educational and constructive experience. The editorial office were very helpful and supportive. It was a pleasure to contribute to your Journal.
Dr. Bernard Terkimbi Utoo, I am happy to publish my scientific work in Journal of Women Health Care and Issues (JWHCI). The manuscript submission was seamless and peer review process was top notch. I was amazed that 4 reviewers worked on the manuscript which made it a highly technical, standard and excellent quality paper. I appreciate the format and consideration for the APC as well as the speed of publication. It is my pleasure to continue with this scientific relationship with the esteem JWHCI.
This is an acknowledgment for peer reviewers, editorial board of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. They show a lot of consideration for us as publishers for our research article “Evaluation of the different factors associated with side effects of COVID-19 vaccination on medical students, Mutah university, Al-Karak, Jordan”, in a very professional and easy way. This journal is one of outstanding medical journal.
Dear Hao Jiang, to Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing We greatly appreciate the efficient, professional and rapid processing of our paper by your team. If there is anything else we should do, please do not hesitate to let us know. On behalf of my co-authors, we would like to express our great appreciation to editor and reviewers.
As an author who has recently published in the journal "Brain and Neurological Disorders". I am delighted to provide a testimonial on the peer review process, editorial office support, and the overall quality of the journal. The peer review process at Brain and Neurological Disorders is rigorous and meticulous, ensuring that only high-quality, evidence-based research is published. The reviewers are experts in their fields, and their comments and suggestions were constructive and helped improve the quality of my manuscript. The review process was timely and efficient, with clear communication from the editorial office at each stage. The support from the editorial office was exceptional throughout the entire process. The editorial staff was responsive, professional, and always willing to help. They provided valuable guidance on formatting, structure, and ethical considerations, making the submission process seamless. Moreover, they kept me informed about the status of my manuscript and provided timely updates, which made the process less stressful. The journal Brain and Neurological Disorders is of the highest quality, with a strong focus on publishing cutting-edge research in the field of neurology. The articles published in this journal are well-researched, rigorously peer-reviewed, and written by experts in the field. The journal maintains high standards, ensuring that readers are provided with the most up-to-date and reliable information on brain and neurological disorders. In conclusion, I had a wonderful experience publishing in Brain and Neurological Disorders. The peer review process was thorough, the editorial office provided exceptional support, and the journal's quality is second to none. I would highly recommend this journal to any researcher working in the field of neurology and brain disorders.
Dear Agrippa Hilda, Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery, Editorial Coordinator, I trust this message finds you well. I want to extend my appreciation for considering my article for publication in your esteemed journal. I am pleased to provide a testimonial regarding the peer review process and the support received from your editorial office. The peer review process for my paper was carried out in a highly professional and thorough manner. The feedback and comments provided by the authors were constructive and very useful in improving the quality of the manuscript. This rigorous assessment process undoubtedly contributes to the high standards maintained by your journal.
International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. I strongly recommend to consider submitting your work to this high-quality journal. The support and availability of the Editorial staff is outstanding and the review process was both efficient and rigorous.
Thank you very much for publishing my Research Article titled “Comparing Treatment Outcome Of Allergic Rhinitis Patients After Using Fluticasone Nasal Spray And Nasal Douching" in the Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology. As Medical Professionals we are immensely benefited from study of various informative Articles and Papers published in this high quality Journal. I look forward to enriching my knowledge by regular study of the Journal and contribute my future work in the field of ENT through the Journal for use by the medical fraternity. The support from the Editorial office was excellent and very prompt. I also welcome the comments received from the readers of my Research Article.
Dear Erica Kelsey, Editorial Coordinator of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics Our team is very satisfied with the processing of our paper by your journal. That was fast, efficient, rigorous, but without unnecessary complications. We appreciated the very short time between the submission of the paper and its publication on line on your site.
I am very glad to say that the peer review process is very successful and fast and support from the Editorial Office. Therefore, I would like to continue our scientific relationship for a long time. And I especially thank you for your kindly attention towards my article. Have a good day!
"We recently published an article entitled “Influence of beta-Cyclodextrins upon the Degradation of Carbofuran Derivatives under Alkaline Conditions" in the Journal of “Pesticides and Biofertilizers” to show that the cyclodextrins protect the carbamates increasing their half-life time in the presence of basic conditions This will be very helpful to understand carbofuran behaviour in the analytical, agro-environmental and food areas. We greatly appreciated the interaction with the editor and the editorial team; we were particularly well accompanied during the course of the revision process, since all various steps towards publication were short and without delay".
I would like to express my gratitude towards you process of article review and submission. I found this to be very fair and expedient. Your follow up has been excellent. I have many publications in national and international journal and your process has been one of the best so far. Keep up the great work.
We are grateful for this opportunity to provide a glowing recommendation to the Journal of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy. We found that the editorial team were very supportive, helpful, kept us abreast of timelines and over all very professional in nature. The peer review process was rigorous, efficient and constructive that really enhanced our article submission. The experience with this journal remains one of our best ever and we look forward to providing future submissions in the near future.
I am very pleased to serve as EBM of the journal, I hope many years of my experience in stem cells can help the journal from one way or another. As we know, stem cells hold great potential for regenerative medicine, which are mostly used to promote the repair response of diseased, dysfunctional or injured tissue using stem cells or their derivatives. I think Stem Cell Research and Therapeutics International is a great platform to publish and share the understanding towards the biology and translational or clinical application of stem cells.
I would like to give my testimony in the support I have got by the peer review process and to support the editorial office where they were of asset to support young author like me to be encouraged to publish their work in your respected journal and globalize and share knowledge across the globe. I really give my great gratitude to your journal and the peer review including the editorial office.
I am delighted to publish our manuscript entitled "A Perspective on Cocaine Induced Stroke - Its Mechanisms and Management" in the Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. The peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal are excellent. The manuscripts published are of high quality and of excellent scientific value. I recommend this journal very much to colleagues.
Dr.Tania Muñoz, My experience as researcher and author of a review article in The Journal Clinical Cardiology and Interventions has been very enriching and stimulating. The editorial team is excellent, performs its work with absolute responsibility and delivery. They are proactive, dynamic and receptive to all proposals. Supporting at all times the vast universe of authors who choose them as an option for publication. The team of review specialists, members of the editorial board, are brilliant professionals, with remarkable performance in medical research and scientific methodology. Together they form a frontline team that consolidates the JCCI as a magnificent option for the publication and review of high-level medical articles and broad collective interest. I am honored to be able to share my review article and open to receive all your comments.
“The peer review process of JPMHC is quick and effective. Authors are benefited by good and professional reviewers with huge experience in the field of psychology and mental health. The support from the editorial office is very professional. People to contact to are friendly and happy to help and assist any query authors might have. Quality of the Journal is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on mental health that is useful for other professionals in the field”.
Dear editorial department: On behalf of our team, I hereby certify the reliability and superiority of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews in the peer review process, editorial support, and journal quality. Firstly, the peer review process of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is rigorous, fair, transparent, fast, and of high quality. The editorial department invites experts from relevant fields as anonymous reviewers to review all submitted manuscripts. These experts have rich academic backgrounds and experience, and can accurately evaluate the academic quality, originality, and suitability of manuscripts. The editorial department is committed to ensuring the rigor of the peer review process, while also making every effort to ensure a fast review cycle to meet the needs of authors and the academic community. Secondly, the editorial team of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is composed of a group of senior scholars and professionals with rich experience and professional knowledge in related fields. The editorial department is committed to assisting authors in improving their manuscripts, ensuring their academic accuracy, clarity, and completeness. Editors actively collaborate with authors, providing useful suggestions and feedback to promote the improvement and development of the manuscript. We believe that the support of the editorial department is one of the key factors in ensuring the quality of the journal. Finally, the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is renowned for its high- quality articles and strict academic standards. The editorial department is committed to publishing innovative and academically valuable research results to promote the development and progress of related fields. The International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is reasonably priced and ensures excellent service and quality ratio, allowing authors to obtain high-level academic publishing opportunities in an affordable manner. I hereby solemnly declare that the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews has a high level of credibility and superiority in terms of peer review process, editorial support, reasonable fees, and journal quality. Sincerely, Rui Tao.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions I testity the covering of the peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, we deeply appreciate the interest shown in our work and its publication. It has been a true pleasure to collaborate with you. The peer review process, as well as the support provided by the editorial office, have been exceptional, and the quality of the journal is very high, which was a determining factor in our decision to publish with you.
The peer reviewers process is quick and effective, the supports from editorial office is excellent, the quality of journal is high. I would like to collabroate with Internatioanl journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews journal clinically in the future time.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude for the trust placed in our team for the publication in your journal. It has been a true pleasure to collaborate with you on this project. I am pleased to inform you that both the peer review process and the attention from the editorial coordination have been excellent. Your team has worked with dedication and professionalism to ensure that your publication meets the highest standards of quality. We are confident that this collaboration will result in mutual success, and we are eager to see the fruits of this shared effort.
Dear Dr. Jessica Magne, Editorial Coordinator 0f Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, I hope this message finds you well. I want to express my utmost gratitude for your excellent work and for the dedication and speed in the publication process of my article titled "Navigating Innovation: Qualitative Insights on Using Technology for Health Education in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients." I am very satisfied with the peer review process, the support from the editorial office, and the quality of the journal. I hope we can maintain our scientific relationship in the long term.
