Utilization of Germplasm for the Genetic Improvement of Mung bean [Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek]: The Constraints and the Opportunities

  • Ruchi Vir
  • Suman Lakhanpaul
  • Sonal Malik
  • Sooraj Umdale
  • Kangila Venkataramana BhatEmail author
Part of the Sustainable Development and Biodiversity book series (SDEB, volume 10)


Pulses are rich in proteins and serve as a main source of this essential component of nutrition particularly for the predominantly vegetarian population of India and adjacent countries. Mung bean [Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek] also known as green gram is an important pulse crop due to its widespread consumption throughout the Indian subcontinent. It is increasingly becoming popular in other parts of the world in recent years due to its value added products that are rich in several nutrients. However, unlike cereal crops, mung bean yields have not been able to meet the demands of the consumers leading to its import from other countries thereby resulting in steep rise in prices. Low productivity in mung bean is pushing it to the marginal lands and further decreasing its competitiveness in comparison to other crops. Despite developing several cultivars suitable for specific agro-climatic zones, mung bean crop is affected by a wide range of biotic and abiotic stresses. Further, some quality traits of mung bean also need to be improved for enhancing its nutritional value. Large germplasm collections are available in national and international gene banks; however, their vast potential is yet to be exploited. Effective utilization of these genetic resources requires their trait-based evaluations for identification of the elite genotypes and core sets. Conventional breeding approaches will get strong impetus by the identification of primary, secondary and tertiary genepools in order to select the donor and design the judicious approaches for the transfer of useful genes. Detailed molecular characterization of genetic diversity of the available germplasm and assessment of phylogenetic relationships among the related taxa done so far can provide useful leads in this regard. Recent developments in the large-scale genomic tools have resulted in the availability of whole genome sequence of mung bean which is a significant boost for the exploitation of biotechnological advancements for its improvement. However, lack of efficient protocols for transformation and regeneration of mung bean pose the important challenges that need to be addressed at the earliest. Appropriate combination of conventional and molecular approaches aimed at exploitation of the available germplasm is the need of the hour for successful development of high yielding cultivars in this crop.


Pulses Vigna radiata Green gram Mung bean Wild relatives Germplasm Genomic resources 


  1. Abd-Alla MH, Vuong TD, Harper JE (1998) Genotypic differences in nitrogen fixation response to NaCl stress in intact and grafted soybean. Crop Sci 38:72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmed S (2009) effect of soil salinity on the yield and yield components of mungbean. Pak J Bot 41:263–268Google Scholar
  3. Ajibade SR, Weeden NF, Chite SM (2000) Inter simple sequence repeat analysis of genetic relationships in the genus Vigna. Euphytica 111:47–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arora RK, Chandel KPS, Joshi BS (1973) Morphological diversity in Phaseolus sublobatus Roxb. Curr Sci 42:359–361Google Scholar
  5. Arora A, Sairam RK, Srivastava GC (2002) Oxidative stress and antioxidative systems in plants. Curr Sci 82:1227–1238Google Scholar
  6. Arulbalachandran D, Ganesh KS, Subramani A (2009) Changes in metabolites and antioxidant enzyme activity of three Vigna species induced by NaCl stress. Am Eurasian J Agron 2:109–116Google Scholar
  7. Babu CR, Sharma SK, Johri BM (1985) Taxonomic revision of Indian Phaseolus, Vigna, Macroptilium and Dysolobium. Bull Bot Surv India 27:1–28Google Scholar
  8. Babu CR, Sharma SK, Chatterjee SR, Arbol YP (1988) Seed protein and amino acid composition of V. radiata var. sublobata (Fabaceae) and two cultigens, V. mungo and V. radiata. Eco Bot 42(1):54–61Google Scholar
  9. Baudin JP, Marechal R (1988) Taxonomy and evolution of genus Vigna. In: Mungbean, proceedings 2nd international symposium Asian vegetable research and development center. Shanhua, Taiwan pp 2–12Google Scholar
  10. Begg JE, Turner NC (1976) Crop water deficits. Adv Agron 28:191–217Google Scholar
  11. Bekheta MA, Talaat IM (2009) Physiological response of mungbean “Vigna radiata” plants to some bioregulators. J Appl Bot Food Qual 83:76–84Google Scholar
  12. Bharathi A, Vijay KS, Veerabadhiran P, Subba BL (2006) Crossability barriers in mungbean (Vigna radiata L. Wilczek) with its wild relatives. Indian. J Crop Sci 1(1–2):120–124Google Scholar
  13. Bhuyan SI, Hossain S, Islam MM, Begum SN, Urbi Z, Hossain S (2014) Molecular assessment of genetic diversity and relationship in selected mungbean germplasms. Biotechnology 13:126–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bisht IS, Mahajan RK, Kawalkar TG (1998) Diversity in mungbean (Vigna radiata L. Wilczek) germplasm collection and its potential use in crop improvement. Ann Appl Biol 132:301–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Capoor SP, Varma PM (1948) Yellow mosaic of Phaseolus lunatus L. Current Science 17:152–53Google Scholar
  16. Chandel KPS, Lester RN, Starling RJ (1984) The wild ancestor of urd and mungbeans (V. mungo (L.) Hepper and V. radiata (L.) Wilczek). Bot J Linn Soc 89:85–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chattopadhyay K, Ali N, Sarkar HK, Mandai N, Bhattacharyya S (2005) Diversity analysis by RAPD and ISSR markers among the selected mungbean (Vigna radiata L. Wilczek) genotypes. Indian J Genet Plant Breed 65(3):173–175Google Scholar
  18. Chen H, Wang L, Wang S, Liu C, Blair MW, Cheng X (2015) Transcriptome sequencing of mung bean (Vigna radiate L.) genes and the identification of EST-SSR markers. PLoS ONE 10(4):e0120273CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Chowdhury RK, Chowdhury JB (1977) Intergeneric hybridization between Vigna mungo L. Hepper and Phaseolus calcaratus RoxB. Indian J Agric Sci 47:117–121Google Scholar
  20. Das I, Singh AP (2014) Effect of PGPR and organic manures on soil properties of organically cultivated mungbean. Bioscan 9(1):27–29Google Scholar
  21. Datta S, Gangwar S, Kumar S, Gupta S, Rai R, Kaashyap M, Singh P, Nagaswamy N (2012) Genetic diversity in selected Indian mungbean [Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek] cultivars using RAPD markers. Am J Plant Sci 3:10851091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. De DN, Krishnan R (1968b) Cytological studies in Phaseolus, I Autotetroploid Phaseolus aureus x tetraploid species of Phaseolus and the backcross. Indian J Genet 28:12–22Google Scholar
  23. Doi K, Kaga A, Tomooka N, Vaughan DA (2002) Molecular phylogeny of genus Vigna subgenus Ceratotropis based on rDNA ITS and atpB-rbcL intergenic spacer for cpDNA sequences. Genetica 114:129–145Google Scholar
  24. Duong M, Nauyen PB, Vo MO, Nguyen HT, Duong NV, Nguyen CH (1988) Mungbean varietal development for problem soils in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam. TVIS Newsl 3:4–9Google Scholar
  25. Fernandez GCJ, Shanmugasundaram S (1988) The AVRDC mungbean improvement program: the past, present and future. In: Shanmugasundaram S, McLean BT (eds) Procedings 2nd international symposium mungbean. AVRDC, Shanhua, Taiwan pp 58–70Google Scholar
  26. Ford-Lloyd BV, Schmidt M, Armstrong SJ, Barazani O, Engels J, Hadas R, Hammer K, Kel SP, Kang D, Khoshbakht K, Li Y, Long C, Lu BR, Ma K, Viet Tung Nguyen KVT, Qiu L, Ge S, Wei W, Zhang Z, Maxted N (2011) Crop wild relatives—undervalued, underutilized and under threat? Bioscience 61(7):559–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Frankel OH, Brown AHD (1984) Plant genetic resources today: a critical appraisal. In: Holden JHW, Williams JT (eds) Crop genetic resources: conservation and evaluation. Allen and Unwin, WinchesterGoogle Scholar
  28. Friedman R, Altman A, Levin N (2006) The effect of salt stress on polyamine biosynthesis and content in mungbean plants and in halophytes. Physiol Plant 76:295–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fuller DQ (2007) Contrasting patterns in crop domestication and domestication rates: recent archaeobotanical insights from the old world. Ann Bot 100:903–924CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Fuzi K, Miyazaki S (1987) Infestation resistance of wild legumes Vigna sublobata to azukibean weevil, Callosobruchus chinensis (L.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidaceae) and its relationship with cytogenetic classification. Appl Entomol Zool 22:229–230Google Scholar
  31. Fuzii K, Ishimoto M, Kitamura K (1989) Patterns of resistance to bean weevils (Bruchidae) in Vigna radiata-mungo-sublobata complex inform the breeding of new resistant varieties. Appl Entomol Zool 24(1):126–132Google Scholar
  32. Goel S, Raina SN, Ogihara Y (2002) Molecular evolution and phylogenetic implications of internal transcribed spacer sequences of nuclear ribosomal DNA in the Phaseolus-Vigna group. Mol Phylogenet Evol 22(1):1–19CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Gulati A, Jaiwal PK (1990) Culture conditions effecting plant regeneration from cotyledon of Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek. Plant Cell Tiss Org Cult 23:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gulati A, Jaiwal PK (1994b) Plant regeneration from cotyledonary node explants of mungbean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek). Plant Cell Rep 13:523–527Google Scholar
  35. Gwag JG, Dixit A, Park YJ, Ma KH, Kwon SJ, Cho GT, Lee GA, Lee SY, Kang HK, Lee SH (2010) Assessment of genetic diversity and population structure in mungbean. Genes Genomics 32(4):299–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Haqqani AM, Pandey RK (1994) Response of mungbean to water stress and irrigation at various growth stages and plant densities. II. Yield and yield components. Trop Agric (Trinidad) 71:289–294Google Scholar
  37. Hasanuzzaman M, Nahar K, Fujita M (2013) Plant response to salt stress and role of exogenous protectants to mitigate saltinduced damages. In: Ahmad P, Azooz MM, Prasad MNV (eds) Ecophysiology and responses of plants under salt stress. Springer, New York, pp 25–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hsiao TC, Acevedo F (1974) Plant response to water deficits, water use efficiency and drought resistance. Agric Meteorol 14:69–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Humphry ME, Konduri V, Lambrides CJ, Magner T, McIntyre CL, Aitken EAB, Liu CJ (2002) Development of a mungbean (Vigna radiata) RFLP linkage map and its comparison with lablab (Lablab purpureus) reveals a high level of co linearity between the two genomes. Theor Appl Genet 105:160–166CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Ignacimuthu S, Babu CR (1987) Mutagenesis for resistance to storage pest in the wild and cultivated urd and mungbean. J Nucl Agric Biol 16:169–176Google Scholar
  41. Jain HK, KL Mehra (1980) Evolution, adaptation, relationships and uses of the species of Vigna cultivated in India. In: Summerfield RJ, Bunting AH (eds) Advances in legume science. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, pp 459–468Google Scholar
  42. Jaiwal PK, Kumari R, Ignacimuthu S, Potrykus I, Sautter C (2001) Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated genetic transformation of mungbean (Vigna radiata L. Wilczek)–a recalcitrant grain legume. Plant Sci 161:239–247CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Javadi F et al (2011) Molecular phylogeny of the subgenus Ceratotropis (genus Vigna, Leguminosae) reveals three eco-geographical groups and Late Pliocene-Pleisticene diversification: evidence from four plastid DNA region sequences. Ann Bot (Oxford) 108:367–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kaga A, Tomooka N, Egawa Y, Hosaka K, Kamijima O (1996) Species relationships in the subgenus Ceratotropis (genus Vigna) as revealed by RAPD analysis. Euphytica 88:17–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kang YJ, Kim SK, Kim MY, Lestari P, Kim KH, Ha BK, Jun TH, Hwang WJ, Lee T, Lee J, Shim S, Yoon MY, Jang YE, Han KS, Taeprayoon P, Yoon N, Somta P, Tanya P, Kim KS, Gwag JG, Moon JK, Lee YH, Park BS, Bombarely A, Doyle JJ, Jackson SA, Schafleitner R, Srinives P, Varshney RK, Lee SH (2014) Genome sequence of mungbean and insights into evolution within Vigna species. Nat Commun. doi: 10.1038/ncomms6443 Google Scholar
  46. Kavimandan SK, Chandel KPS (1988) Nodulation in some wild species of Vigna and symbiotic behavior of their root nodule bacteria. New Bot 15(4):253–258Google Scholar
  47. Khanal NP, Khanal NN, Gurung GB, Shepra LT, Gupta KP, Thapa S, Joshi KD, Harris D, Kumar Rao JVDK, Darai R (2005) Mungbean in cereal fallows: Experience of farmers’ participatory research and development activities in terai of Nepal. In: Kharkwal MC (ed) Proceedings of the fouth international legumes research conference (IFLRC-IV), October 18–22, 2005, New Delhi, India. Food Legumes for Nutritional Security and Sustainable AgricultureGoogle Scholar
  48. Kumar BS, Prakash M, Sathiya N, Gokulakrishnan J (2012a) Breeding for salinity tolerance in mungbean. In: 2nd international conference on Asia agriculture and Animal (ICAAA 2012), vol 4. APCBEE Procedia, pp 30–35Google Scholar
  49. Kumar RR, Goswami S, Sharma, Singh K, Gadpayle KA, Kumar N, Rai GK, Singh M, Rai RD (2012b) Protection against heat stress in wheat involves change in cell membrane stability, antioxidant enzymes, osmolyte, H2O2 and transcript of heat shock protein. Int J Plant Physiol Biochem 4(4):83–91Google Scholar
  50. Kumari P, Varma SK (1983) Genotypic differences in flower production/shedding and yeild in mungbean (Vigna radiata) Indian J Plant Physi 26:402-405Google Scholar
  51. Lakhanpaul S, Chadha S, Bhat KV (2000) Random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) analysis in Indian mungbean (V. radiata (L.) Wilczek) cultivars. Genetica 109:227–234CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Lavanya GR, Srivastava J, Ranade SA (2008) Molecular assessment of genetic diversity in mungbean germplasm. J. Genet 87:65–74CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Lawn R, Williams W, Imrie BC (1988) Potential of wild germplasm as a source of tolerance to environmental stresses in mungbean. In: Mungbean Proceedings 2nd international symposium. AVRDC, Taiwan, pp 136–145Google Scholar
  54. Liu F, Andersen MN, Jensen CR (2003) Loss of pod set caused by drought stress is associated with water status and ABA content of reproductive structures in soybean. Funct Plant Biol 30:271–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lukoki L, Maréchal R, Otoul E (1980) The wild ancestors of cultivated beans V. radiata and V. mungo. Bull Jard Bot Nat Belg 28:23–30Google Scholar
  56. Marechal R, Mascherpa JM, Stainier F (1978) Etude taxonomique d’ un group groupe d’ especes des generes Phaseolus et Vigna (Papillionaceae) sur la base de donnees morphologiques, et polliniques traitees par l’ analyse informatique. Boissera 28:1–273Google Scholar
  57. Menancio-Hautea DM, Kumar L, Danesh D, Young ND (1992) A genome map for mungbean [Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek] based on DNA genetic markers (2 N = 2X = 22). In: O’Brien SJ (ed) Genome maps, vol 6. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY, pp 259–261Google Scholar
  58. Misra N, Gupta AK (2006) Interactive effects of sodium and calcium on proline metabolism in salt tolerant green gram cultivar. Am J Plant Physiol 1:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Miyazaki H (1982) Classification and phylogenetic relationship of the Vigna radiata—silvestris—sublobata group. Bull Natl Ints Sci D 33:1–61Google Scholar
  60. Morton F, Smith RE, Poehlman JM (1982) The mungbean. College of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Agronomy and Soils, Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, Spec. PublGoogle Scholar
  61. Musgrave ME, Vanhoy MA (1989) A growth analysis of waterlogging damage in mungbean (Phaseolus aureus). Can J Bot 67:2391–2395CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Narasimhan A, Patil BR, Datta S, Kaashyap M (2010) Genetic diversity assessment across different genotypes of mungbean and urdbean using molecular markers. Electron J Plant Breed 1(4):379–383Google Scholar
  63. Nariani TK (1960) Yellow mosaic of mung (ZPhaseolus aureus L.). Indian Phytopathol 13:24–29Google Scholar
  64. Paliwal KV, Maliwal GL (1980) Growth and nutrient uptake relationship of some crops in saline substrate. Ann Arid Zone 19:251–253Google Scholar
  65. Pandey RK, Herrera WAT, Pendleton JW (1984) Drought response of grain legume under irrigation gradient. I. Yield and yield components. Agron J 76:549–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pandiyan M, Ramamoorthi N, Ganesh SK, Jebaraj S, Nagarajan P, Balasubramanian P (2008) Broadening the genetic base and introgression of MYMV resistance and yield improvement through unexplored genes from wild relatives in mungbean. Plant Mutat Rep 2:3343Google Scholar
  67. Poehlman JM (1978) What we have learnt from the international mungbean nurseries. In: Proceedings of the 1st international mungbean symposium. Asian Vegetable Research and Development Centre, Shanhua, Tainan pp 97–100Google Scholar
  68. Ramos MLG, Parsons R, Sprent JI, James EK (2003) Effect of water stress on nitrogen fixation and nodule structure of common bean. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 38:339–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Saha P, Chatterjee P, Biswas AK (2010) NaCl pre-treatment alleviates salt stress by enhancement of antioxidant defense and osmolyte accumulation in mungbean (Vigna radiata L. Wilczek). Indian J Exp Biol 48:593–600PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Sahoo L, Sugla T, Jaiwal PK (2003) In vitro regenearion and transformation of cowpea, mungbean and adzuki bean. In: Jaiwal PK, Singh RP (eds) Applied genetics of leguminosae biotechnology, pp 89–120. Kluwer Academin PublishersGoogle Scholar
  71. Saini A, Reddy SK, Jawali N (2008) Intra-individual and intra-species heterogeneity in nuclear rDNA ITS region of Vigna species from subgenus Ceratotropis. Genet Res 90:299–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Savi G (1826) Troisieme memoire sur les genres Phaseolus et Dolichos par le Dr. Gaetano Savi. Linnean 1:331Google Scholar
  73. Schafleitner R, Nair RM, Rathore A, Wang YW, Lin CY, Chu SH, Lin PY, Chang JC, Ebert AW (2015) The AVRDC—the world vegetable center mungbean (Vigna radiata) core and mini core collections Schafleitner et al. BMC Genomics 16:344Google Scholar
  74. Sehrawat N, Yadav M, Bhat KV, Sairam RK, Jaiwal PK (2015) Effect of salinity stress on mungbean [Vigna radiata (L) Wilczek] during consecutive summer and spring seasons. J Agric Sci 60(1):23–32Google Scholar
  75. Singh BV, Ahuja MR (1977) Phaseolus sublobatus Roxb. A source of resistance to yellow mosaic virus for cultivated mung. Indian J Genet 37:130–132Google Scholar
  76. Singh NB, Kochhar S (2005) Challenges for increasing area, production and productivity of pulses in the Indian sub-continent. In: Proceedings of the fouth international legumes research conference (IFLRC-IV), October 18–22, 2005, New Delhi, India; Kharkwal MC (ed) (2005) Food legumes for nutritional security and sustainable agriculture. In: Proceedings of the fouth international legumes research conference (IFLRC-IV), October 18–22, New Delhi, India; Kharkwal MC (ed) Food legumes for nutritional security and sustainable agricultureGoogle Scholar
  77. Singh DP, Singh BB (2011) Breeding for tolerance to abiotic stresses in mungbean. J Food Legum 24(2):83–90Google Scholar
  78. Smykal PP, Coyne CJ, Ambrose MJ, Maxted N, Schaefer H, Blair MW, Berger J, Greene SL, Nelson MN, Besharat N, Vymyslick T, Toker C, Saxena RK, Roorkiwal M, Pandey MK, Hu J, Li YH, Wang LX, Guo Y, Qiu LJ, Redden RJ, Varshney RK (2015) Crit Rev Plant Sci 34:43–104Google Scholar
  79. Sonia SR, Singh RP, Jaiwal PK (2007) Agrobacterium tumifaciens-mediated transfer of Phaseolus vulgaris Į-amylase inhibitor-1 gene into mungbean (Vigna radiata L. Wilczek) using bar as selectable marker. Plant Cell Rep 26:187–198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Souframanien J, Gopalkrishna T (2005) Validation of molecular markers linked to mungbean yellow mosain virus in black gram (Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper). Pages 53. In: Proceedings of international food legume research conference, New Delhi, India. Indian soc of genet pl brGoogle Scholar
  81. Sony SK, Ahashanhabib MD, Islam MN (2012) Genetic diversity analysis of thirteen mungbean [Vigna radita (L.) Wilczek] cultivars using RAPD markers. Bangladesh J Bot 41(2):169–175Google Scholar
  82. Srivalli B, Chinnusamy V, Chopra RK (2003) Antioxidant defence in response to abiotic stresses in plants. J Plant Biol 30:121–139Google Scholar
  83. Tazeen S, Mirza B (2004) Factors affecting Agrobacterium tumefaciens mediated genetic transformation of Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek. Pak J Bot 36(4):887–896Google Scholar
  84. Thirumaran AS, Seralathan MA (1988) Utilization of mungbean. In: Shanmugasundaram S (ed) Second International Mungbean Symposium Proceedings. AVRDC, Tainan, pp 470–485Google Scholar
  85. Thomas R, Fukai MJS, Peoples MB (2004) The effect of timing and severity of water deficit on growth, development, yield accumulation and nitrogen fixation of mungbean. Field Crop Res 86:67–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Tickoo SK, deParalta-Venturia MN, Harik LR, Worcester HD, Salama ME, Young AN, Moch H, Amin MB (2006) Am J Surg. Pathol. 30:141Google Scholar
  87. Tomooka N, Egawa Y, Lairungreang C, Thavarasook C(1992) Collection of wild Ceratotropis species on the Nansei Archipelago, Japan and evaluation of bruchid resistance JARQ, 26:3 pp 222–230Google Scholar
  88. Tomooka N, Yoon MS, Doi K, Kaga A, Vaughan D (2002) AFLP analysis of diploid species in the genus Vigna subgenus Ceratotropis. Genet Res Crop Evol 49:521–530Google Scholar
  89. Tomooka N, Senthil N, Pandiyan M, Ramamoothi N, Kaga A, Vaughan DA (2008) Collection and conservation of leguminous crops and their wild relatives in Tamil Nadu, India, 2008. Annual report on exploration and introduction of plant genetic resources (NIAS, Tsukuba, Japan), vol 24, pp 113–125Google Scholar
  90. Vaillancourt RE, Weeden NF (1993) Lack of isozyme similarity between Vigna unguiculata and other species of genus Vigna (Leguminosae). Can J Bot 71:586–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Varma AK, Rao NSS (1975) Effect of different levels of soil moisture on growth, yield and some physiological aspects of nodulation in greengram. Indian J Agric Sci 45:11–16Google Scholar
  92. Van Hintum TJL, Brown AHD, Spillane C, Hodgkin T (2000) Core collections of plant genetic resources. IPGRI Technical Bulletin No. 3. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  93. Varma AK, Rao NSS (1975) Effect of different levels of soil moisture on growth, yield and some physiological aspects of nodulation in greengram. Indian J Agric Sci 45:11–16Google Scholar
  94. Verdcourt B (1970) Studies in the Leguminosae-Papilionoidae the ‘Flora of Tropical East Africa’. Kew Bull 24:507–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Vir R, Bhat KV, Lakhanpaul S (2008) Analysis of population substructure, genetic differentiation and phylogenetic relationships among selected Asiatic Vigna Savi species. Genet Resour Crop Evol 56:783–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Vir R, Bhat KV, Lakhanpaul S (2009) Transferability of Sequence Tagged Microsatellite Sites (STMS) to the other pulse yielding taxa belonging to tribe Phaseolae. Int J Integr Biol 5:62–65Google Scholar
  97. Vir R, Jehan T, Bhat KV, Lakhanpaul S (2010) Genetic characterization and species relationships among selected Asiatic Vigna savi. Genet Resour Crop Evol 57:1091–1107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Wahid A (2004) Analysis of toxic and osmotic effects of sodium chloride on leaf growth and economic yield of sugarcane. Bot Bull Acad Sin 45:133–141Google Scholar
  99. Wahid A, Hameed M, Rasul E (2004) Salt-induced injury symptoms, changes in nutrient and pigment composition, and yield characteristics of mungbean. Int J Agric Biol 6:1143–1152Google Scholar
  100. Worrall VS, Roughly RJ (1976) The effects of moisture stress on infection of Trifolium subterraneum L. by Rhizobium trifoli Dang. J Exp Bot 27:1233–1241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Yadav SK, Katikala S, Yellisetty V, Kannepalle A, Narayana JL, Maddi V, Mandapaka M, Shanker AK, Bandi V, Bharadwaja KP (2012) Optimization of Agrobacterium mediated genetic transformation of cotyledonary node explants of Vigna radiata. SpringerPlus 1:59CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  102. Yao Y, Chen F, Wang M, Wang J, Ren G (2008) Antidiabetic activity of mung bean extracts in diabetic KK-Ay mice. J Agric Food Chem 56(19):8869–8873CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. Young ND, Kumar L, Menancio-Hautea D, Danesh D, Talekar NS, Shanmugasundaram S, Kim DH (1992) RFLP mapping of a major bruchid resistance gene in mungbean (Vigna radiata L. Wilczek). Theor Appl Genet 84:839–844PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. Zahir ZA, Shah MK, Naveed M, Akhter MJ (2010) Substrate dependent auxin production by Rhizobium phaseoli improves the growth and yield of Vigna radiata L. under salt stress conditions. J Microbiol Biotechnol 20:1288–1294CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ruchi Vir
    • 1
  • Suman Lakhanpaul
    • 1
  • Sonal Malik
    • 1
  • Sooraj Umdale
    • 2
  • Kangila Venkataramana Bhat
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of BotanyUniversity of DelhiDelhiIndia
  2. 2.National Bureau of Plant Genetic ResourcesPusa CampusNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations