ISSN 0974-0775 NAAS Rating : 4.38
International Journal of Applied Agricultural & Horticultural Sciences Volume 8 Number 2 March-April 2017 Bimonthly
for
Go
GREEN NG FA R M I
GREEN FARMING ( International Journal of Applied Agricultural & Horticultural Sciences )
(Abbr. - Green Farming Int. J.)
EDITORIAL ADVISORY PANEL (HONY.) Dr. P.M. SALIMATH
Dr. N.C. PATEL
Hon'able Vice‐Chancellor, University of Agricultural Sciences, Raichur (Karnataka)
Hon’able Vice‐Chancellor Anand Agricultural University, Anand (Gujarat)
Dr. D.L. MAHESWAR
Dr. NARENDRA SINGH RATHORE
Hon’able Vice‐Chancellor, Univ. of Horticultural Sciences, Bagalkot, Navanagar, Bagalkot (Karnataka)
Dy. Director General Education, Division of Education, Krishi Anusandhan Bhawan ‐ II, ICAR, New Delhi
Dr. M.B. CHETTI
Dr. S.M. ILYAS
Assistant Director General (HRD), Education Division Former, Vice‐Chancellor (NDUAT, Faizabad) and Former, Director, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi NAARM, Hyderabad, Green View Apartments, Dwarka, New Delhi
Dr. RAJEEV K. VARSHNEY
Dr. H.S. DHALIWAL
Research Programme Director ‐ Genetic Gains International Crops Research Institute for the Semi‐Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru, Hyderabad (Telangana)
Dean, College of Agriculture Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana (Punjab)
Dr. ASHOK K. PATRA
Dr. K.S. RANA Professor & Head, Division of Agronomy, Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), Pusa, New Delhi
Director, Indian Institute of Soil Science (I.C.A.R.) Nabi Bagh, Berasia Road, Bhopal (M.P.)
Dr. V.M. BHALE
Dr. K.K. SINGH
Dean, P.G.I., College of Agriculture, Dr. P.D. Krishi Vidyapeeth, Krishinagar, Akola (Maharashtra)
Director ‐ Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering (ICAR), Nabi Bagh, Berasia Road, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh)
Dr. SURENDRA S. SIWACH
Dr. J.C. TARAFDAR National Fellow & Principal Scientist (Soil Chem/ Microbiology) Central Arid Zone Research Institute (ICAR) Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
Director of Research and Dean, College of Agriculture CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar (Haryana)
Dr. K.L. SHARMA
Dr. M.K. ARVADIA
Principal Scientist & National Fellow, Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture (ICAR), Hyderabad (A.P.)
Principal & Dean, N.M. College of Agriculture, Navsari Agricultural University, Navsari (Gujarat)
Dr. PRAMOD W. RAMTEKE Prof. & Dean, Post Graduate Studies, S.H. Institute of Agriculture Technology & Sciences (Deemed University), Allahabad (U.P.)
Dr. SRINIVASAN RAMASAMY Entomologist, AVRDC ‐ The World Vegetable Center, P.B. Box. 42, Shanhua, Tainan (Chinese) Taipei (China)
Dr. FERNANDO GONZALES
Dr. A. NOOR
Professor, Deptt. of Horticulture, College of Agriculture, Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet (PHILIPPINES)
Ex. Professor (Entomology) & Head ‐ Plant Protection, Agri. Research Station (RAU, Bikaner), Mandore, Jodhpur, Rajasthan (Hony. Secret.)
Editor Editorial Asstt. Chief Editor (Hony.) Dr. A. HUSSAIN K. SINGH Dr. A. NOOR Publisher, Printer & Owned by : Dr. Anwar Hussain, and Published at White House, 78‐A, Bank Colony Road, Near Lal Bangla, Raikabagh, JODHPUR ‐ 342 006 (Rajasthan) INDIA. Printed at : Bhandari Offset, JODHPUR ‐ 342 005 (Rajasthan) INDIA, Editor ‐ Dr. Anwar Hussain
Registration No. RAJENG/2010/32178
NAAS Rating ‐ 4.38 (2017)
ISSN 0974‐0775
Citation : Abstracting & Indexing in Indian Science Abstracts (NISCAIR) & CABI International; Indexing in Agricultural & Biological Abstracts etc. Disclaimer : Copy right reserved with the publisher. No part of this journal can be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means without the written permission of the publisher. The publisher/editor does not assume any responsibility for opinions offered by the authors published in the Journal. The views expressed in the articles by the authors are their own. All disputes are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of competent courts in Jodhpur only. The publisher and authors declare that they have compiled this document carefully. However, for any technical shortcomings, they hold no responsibility whatsoever. They assume no liability whatsoever for any damage resulting from the use of this document or its contents. They does not watch any claim for made by the advertisement of products and services. Note : The editor does not accept responsibility for returning unsolicited publication material. The publisher and the editor are not responsible for any delay, whatsoever, in publication/delivery of the periodicals to the subscribers due to unforeseen circumstances or postal delay/ lost. All Correspondence to : Editorial Office, GREEN FARMING, White House, 78‐A, Bank Colony Road, Near Lal Bangla, Raikabagh, JODHPUR ‐ 342 006 (Rajasthan) India.
ISSN 0974-0775 NAAS Rating : 4.38
GREEN FARMING
(International Journal of Applied Agricultural & Horticultural Sciences) (Abbreviation : Green Farming Int. J.)
Volume 8
Number 2
Bimonthly
March-April 2017 CONTENTS
Research Papers
Previous issue : Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 1-253
Combining ability studies of lodging susceptible vs resistant genotypes of rice GIRIJA RANI M., SATYANARAYANA P.V., LAL AHAMED M., ASHOK RANI Y. and SRINIVASARAO V. ......... 254
Heterosis and combining ability studies for yield & yield components in mungbean (Vigna radiata (L.) W. G. GOVARDHAN, K.H.P. REDDY, D.M. REDDY, P. SUDHAKAR and B.V.B. REDDY
......... 260
A comparative analysis of genetic variability and correlation in chickpea under normal and late sown conditions ......... 266 P.B. DESAI, B.S. PATIL, A.G. VIJAYAKUMAR and M.P. BASAVARAJAPPA
Influence of season on genetic variability for WUE and kernel yield related traits in F5 & F6 RIL population of groundnut GITTA SPANDANA, D.L. SAVITHRAMMA, R.L. RAVI KUMAR, K.T. RANGASWAMY, J. SHANTALA and N. MARAPPA ......... 271
Genetic studies for drought related traits in mungbean G. GOVARDHAN, K.H.P. REDDY, D.M. REDDY, P. SUDHAKAR and B.V.B. REDDY
......... 276
Evaluation of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan L. M.) genotypes for waterlogging, salinity and combined stress tolerance SAVITA DUHAN, ANITA KUMARI, SUMAN BALA, NIDHI SHARMA and SUNITA SHEOKAND
......... 282
Effect of fertility restoration on yield and its contributing traits of CGMS-based pigeonpea hybrids SUNIL CHAUDHARI, S.B. PATIL, DIPALI THAKARE, A.N. TIKLE and K.B. SAXENA
......... 287
Genetic combining ability and heterosis for yield and component horticultural traits in chilli across environments ......... 291 MUNISH SHARMA and AKHILESH SHARMA
Estimation of genetic divergence for yield and quality traits in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) SAHEB PAL, HEM RAJ SHARMA, AMARJEET KUMAR RAI, RAMESH KUMAR BHARDWAJ and ARINDAM DAS
......... 296
Genetic variability, correlation and path analysis in sponge gourd genotypes in Kymore plateau NILESH SHARMA, B.P. BISEN, RAJANI BISEN and BHUPESH VERMA
........ 301
RAPD analysis in opium poppy (Papaver somniferum L.) C.L. KHATIK, S.P. SHARMA, S.R. MALOO, N.S. DODIYA, A. JOSHI and R.K. JAIN
........ 306
Studies on variability parameters, correlation and path analysis in strawberry cultivars SUMAN LATA, GIRISH SHARMA, SOURABH GARG and GOPA MISHRA
........ 312
Evaluation and genetic parameters study in gladiolus (Gladiolus hybridus Hort.) AKKAMAHADEVI D.A., V.S. PATIL and SRIDHAR K.
........ 317
Estimation of genetic diversity for grain yield & its component traits in restorer lines of rice (Oryza sativa) P. RAVI YUGANDHAR, D.V. DAHAT, K.K. BARAHTE and SUNEETHA KOTA
........ 322
Appraisement of variability, heritability and genetic advance among rice genotypes for yield and quality traits ........ 326 RANJEET SINGH SRAN, D.P. PANDEY, AMANINDER DEEP SINGH and NIMIT KUMAR
Studies on the performance of rice landraces in Western Zone of Tamil Nadu A. MOHAMMED ASHRAF, SUBBALAKSHMI LOKANADAN and S. RAJESWARI
........ 330
Studies on genetic diversity in green gram [Vigna radiata (L.)] NAVEEN JAKHAR and GABRIAL M. LAL
........ 334
Contd. ....
Genotype x environment interaction for seed cotton yield and quality traits in upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) A.B.M. SIRISHA, LAL AHAMED M., P.V. RAMA KUMAR and V. SRINIVASA RAO
........ 338
Varietal evaluation and genetic variability analysis in pummelo (Citrus grandis) genotypes under subtropics of Punjab ........ 342 A.K. BASWAL, H.S. RATTANPAL, K.S. GILL and GURTEG SINGH UPPAL
Principal component analysis in okra (Abelmoschus esculentus L. Moench) MEENAKSHI RAMGIRY, B.K. VERMA and A.K. NAIDU
........ 346
Herbicides combinations for control of complex weed flora in dry direct-seeded rice in TBP command area of Karnataka R.B. NEGALUR, N. ANANDA, G.S. GURUPRASAD and G. NARAPPA
........ 350
Effect of phosphorus doses and weed management practices on chickpea (C. arietinum ) under rainfed condition SATENDRA LAL YADAV, BHAGWAN SINGH, V.P. CHAHAL, ARTI YADAV and RAHUL KUMAR ........ 356
Effect of different levels of phosphorus & sulphur on nutrient content and uptake of semi-rabi pigeonpea (C. cajan L.) MAHESH CHAND AGARWAL, V.R. BHATT, M.B. VIRADIYA and CHETNA KUMARI ........ 362
Effect of mechanization and non-mechanization practices on growth and yield of soybean - safflower under varying spacing and nutrient management P.B. JADHAV, V.S. SHINDE and D.R. KAMBLE ........ 368 Integrated use of aquatic weed composts on yield and uptake of nutrients by rice (Oryza sativa) Y. BALACHENNAIAH, P. MADHU VANI, P. PRASUNA RANI and B. VENKATESWARLU
........ 374
Effect of long-term use of fertilizers, lime and FYM on kinetics of P, soil fertility status and crop yields in an acid soil ........ 379 SWATI SINGH, N.C. GUPTA, P. MAHAPATRA, R.N. SINGH and D.K. SAHI
Efficacy of organic, inorganic and biofertilizers on yield and nutrient uptake by wheat (Triticum aestivum) in Haplustepts RAHUL CHOPRA, MAHENDRA SHARMA, H.S. PUROHIT, AJEET SINGH and D.K. SHARMA
........ 384
Effect of organics manures and foliar spray of fertilizers on yield of chilli and soil properties in a Vertisol T. THULASIRAMIREDDY, BIDARI B.I., P.L. PATIL and MANJUNATHA M.V.
........ 389
Alleviation of high abiotic stress in clusterbean using stress-tolerant Rhizobia as multi-trait PGPR H.K. MONDAL, R. GERA and R. KUMAR
........ 394
Standardization of balanced nutrition and bio-inoculants on growth, yield and microbial population in soil of chrysanthemum (Dendranthema grandiflora T.) MAHANTESH BIRADAR, B. HEMLA NAIK, M. GANAPATHI and M.S. NANDEESH ........ 399 Effect of organic manures on growth and yield performance of papaya (Carica papaya) cv. Red lady PRANESH, A.R. KURUBAR, ASHOK HUGAR, S.S. PATIL and S.R. BALANAGOUDAR
........ 404
Effect of integrated nutrient management on NPK uptakes and soil properties of maize in maize-groundnut cropping system T. BHARATH, G.E. CH VIDYASAGAR, V. PRAVEEN RAO and A. MADHAVI ........ 409 Effect of irrigation level and mulches on yield and economics of drip irrigated summer groundnut (A. hypogaea L.) D.R. KAMBLE, D.N. GOKHALE, P.B. JADHAV and G.D. GADADE
........ 413
Effects of irrigation and organic manure levels on growth, yield and water use efficiency of large cardamom in Darjeeling ........ 417 R. LEPCHA, R. RAY, S.K. PATRA, R. YONZONE, P.H. BHUTIA and M.S. DEVI Evaluation of row spacing and nipping on productivity and profitability of chickpea under irrigated condition H.L. SONBOIR, B.K. SAHU and V.K. TRIPATHI
........ 422
Influence of phosphate and potassium solubilising fungi on growth and yield of brinjal NIRMALA B.J., ANUSHA T., M.S. NANDHISH and S.A. NADAF
........ 426
Contd. ....
Comparative effects of organic and inorganic soil amendments on yield & quality of cashew under South Konkan R.C. GAJBHIYE, S.N. PAWAR, S.P. SALVI and P.C. HALDAVANEKAR
........ 430
Effect of silicon sources on nutrient status and yield of rice in wet land soil of Kerala ARYA LEKSHMI V. and JAYASREE SANKAR S.
........ 434
Effect of exogenous application of plant growth regulators on yield and quality of sweet orange (C. sinensis) cv. Mosambi P. PEDDA NAGI REDDY, N.N. REDDY, N. JYOTHI LAKSHMI, M.L.N. REDDY, ........ 438 P. VIJAYA KUMAR and VEENA JOSHI
Effect of plant growth regulators on yield and quality of garlic (Allium sativum ) cv. Jamnagar PRATAP D., M. PADMA and A. SIVASANKAR
........ 444
Winter okra response to mulch materials in net-cum-polyhouse and open field JAYA D. VARU, P.N. SARSAVADIYA, D.V. PATEL and R.M. SATASIYAA
........ 449
Effect of drip irrigation and fertigation on the nutrient content and nutrient use efficiency of chilli (C. annuum) AJEET SINGH, S.K. SHARMA, H.S. PUROHIT, RAHUL CHOPRA and PRIYANKA
........ 454
Sustainable sweet orange (Citrus sinensis L. Osbeck) cv. Sathgudi production in red loamy soils of Andhra Pradesh through INM L. MUKUNDA LAKSHMI, K.T.V. RAMANA, V. GOPI, T. GOURI SANKAR, G. SARADA and K. GOPAL ........ 458
Growers’ knowledge about production technologies and good agricultural practices of medicinal plants KIRAN SAIN, BEENA YADAV and RITA GOEL
........ 462
Effect of planting season and plant geometry on disease incidence, plant growth and yield of papaya (C. papaya) RAHUL KUMAR, S.K. SINGH and SHIKHA YADAV
........ 468
Influence of nutrient management & target yield approach on quality, expression of Cry protein & pest population in Bt-cotton MANJULA YADACHI, CHANDRASHEKAR C.P. and M.P. POTDAR ........ 473
Influence of long-term use of farmyard manure and inorganic fertilizers on carbon pools in a Vertisol P. JOGA RAO, A. LALITHA KUMARI, M.N. VENKATESH and Y. SIVA DEVIKA
........ 477
Effect of irrigation and sulphur on yield of summer clusterbean under South Gujarat condition V.R. NAIK, P.S. MISTRY, N.G. SAVANI, K.K. PATEL and V.P. USADADIA
........ 480
Effect of foliar application of plant growth regulators on growth, yield and quality of garlic (A. sativum L.) var. GG-3 ........ 483 M.R. ZINZALA, P.P. BHALERAO and S.J. PATIL
Evaluation of nutritional and organoleptic parameters of foam-mat dried pineapple powder SEEMA SHEKHAWAT, S.K. JAIN and N.S. RATHORE
........ 486
Effect of processing techniques on nutritional, functional and sensorial properties of fenugreek seeds R.S. AGRAWAL, H.M. SYED and A.R. SAWATE
........ 490
Optimization of process variables during osmo-convective dehydration of aonla using RSM KM. SHEETAL BANGA, G.R. SINGH and SUNIL KUMAR
........ 494
Physico-chemical properties of tomato wine as influenced by yeast strains and fermentation conditions JAGADISH, K. RAMACHANDRA NAIK, LAXMAN KUKANOOR, B.C. PATIL and CHAYA P. PATIL
........ 498
Development & nutritional evaluation of biscuits prepared by using dried cauliflower (Brassica oleracea) leaves powder ........ 502 ABDUL RAHEEM MI, SHAIKH SABOOR, P.S. PATIL, S.D. KATKE and F.D. KHAN
Strategic Vision Message : 38 Organic Kitchen Garden : For Food, Nutrition, Health and Self-Employment A.N. SABALPARA
Back Inner Page
Green Farming Vol. 8 (2) : 266-270 ; March-April, 2017
Research Paper
A comparative analysis of genetic variability and correlation in chickpea under normal and late sown conditions P.B. DESAI a b
a1*
b2
, B.S. PATIL , A.G. VIJAYAKUMAR
c3
and M.P. BASAVARAJAPPA
d4
Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad - 580 005 c
IARI, Regional Research Centre, Dharwad, AICRP for Dryland Agriculture, RARS, Vijaypur - 586 127 d
Department of Plant Pathology, College of Horticulture, Bagalkot - 587 104 (Karnataka) Received : 22 September 2016
;
Revised accepted : 10 February 2017
ABSTRACT Analysis of genetic variability and association among yield and yield related traits was carried out using 13 characters in diverse chickpea genotypes. The study was conducted in two seasons. High variability was observed for majority of the traits in both the seasons. In late sown condition high GCV and PCV was recorded for number of pods, seeds per plant and 100 seed weight. In addition to these traits primary branches per plant, grain yield per plant exhibited high GCV and PCV in timely sown condition. The sufficient variability available for these traits can be exploited by direct selection. The mean values of number of pods and seeds per plant were higher but mean values of 100 seed weight was reduced in late sown condition indicating sink number is not affected by delayed sowing. Grain yield per plant showed positive correlation with biomass per plant, number of pods per plant, number of seeds per plant in both season. However, in late sown condition grain yield was negatively associated with all the reproductive parameters except days to physiological maturity. Development of short duration genotypes could be helpful in attaining higher grain yield before onset of end season moisture stress. High variability, heritability and significant positive association with grain yield was exhibited by biomass per plant, number of pods per plant and number of seeds per plant. These traits can be used as selection indices to improve yield in late sown condition as well as timely sown condition. Key words : Chickpea, Correlation, Genetic advance, Genetic variability, Growth & yield parameters, Heritability, Selection.
INTRODUCTION Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is the second most important food legume in the world. India is the largest producer of chickpea with annual production of 9.88 m tones from an area of 10.22 m ha with productivity of 967 kg/ha (Anon., 2014). Genetic variability for quantitative and qualitative characters of economic importance is a prerequisite for any crop improvement programme. Chickpea being a self-pollinated, lack of adequate variability and susceptibility of the present day cultivars to various abiotic and biotic stresses are the major bottlenecks in improving the productivity (Parameshwarappa et al., 2011 and Gaur et al., 2012). Grain yield of chickpea is quantitative character which is affected by many genetic factors as well as environmental fluctuations (Muehlbauer and Singh, 1987). Selection for yield on basis of per se performance alone may not be effective compared to selection based on the component character associated with it, which is biometrically determined by correlation coefficient. Therefore, variability and correlation 1 3
P.G. Student *(
[email protected]), Plant Breeder,
4
Assoc. Professor
2
Sr. Scientist
studies under different environments provides useful information regarding pattern of changing variability under varied condition and assessing the consequences of selecting one or more traits. Hence, present study was undertaken to assess variability and association among yield contributing traits among the selected chickpea genotypes under two different seasons.
MATERIALS AND METHODS Present study was conducted in two seasons. The genotypes examined comprised of cultivars wild accessions, exotic collections and improved breeding lines. Fifty chickpea genotypes were evaluated in rabi 2014-15 and 57 in rabi 201516 at IARI, RRC, Dharwad. The field experiments were conducted in Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with 2 replications. In the first season, the crop was sown on 30th, November, 2014 and on 9th October, 2015 in the second season. Each genotype was represented by single row of 3 m length each with spacing of 30 cm × 10 cm per replication. Five plants per replication and per genotype were randomly selected for recording the observations on 13 growth and yield related traits (Table 2). The analysis of variance for different characters was
18
March-April 2017
267
Genetic variability and correlation in normal and late sown chickpea
carried out by following Panse and Sukhatme (1961). In order to assess the genetic variability among the genotypes for the characters under study, the genetic parameters such as genotypic coefficient of variability (GCV%), phenotypic coefficient of variability (PCV%), heritability (h2), genetic advance (GA) and genetic advance as % mean (GAM) were estimated. Heritability in the broad sense was derived based on the formula given by Hansan et al. (1956). GA was obtained by the formula prescribed by Johnson et al. (1955). The method adopted by Burton and De Vane (1953) was used to calculate phenotypic and genotypic coefficient of variation. Phenotypic and genotypic correlations among 13 characters were computed formula as per Weber and Moorthy (1950)
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION It is essential to study the variability parameters like PCV, GCV, h2 and GAM. Hence, an important step in the designed process of breaking the barrier of yield improvement is the critical analysis of character association. Results of comparative analysis of variability and association of different traits under late and timely sowing are discussed under following heads
Variability studies : Analysis of variance indicated highly significant variation for all the yield and yield related traits (Table 1) in both the season. This indicated the presence of sufficient variability for all the traits studied. The presence of high variability in the present material is encouraging from the point of research effort aimed at improving yield by amelioration of variability of yield contributing traits. In general, the number of days taken to initiate reproductive period was more in second season, when compared to first season. This is reflected in mean values of the days to flower initiation, days to 50 % flowering, days to pod initiation and days to physiological maturity. These differences in the mean values of the reproductive characters may be attributed to delayed sowing in the first season that restricted reproductive period and hastened maturity. In the late sown condition (first season), the
mean values of the number of pods per plant and number of seeds per plant were higher but mean value of 100 seed weight was reduced (Table 2, 3). This indicates that, the sink number is not affected by the delayed sowing. However, failure of the plant to accumulate the sink at faster rate in required quantity in forced maturity condition has resulted in reduction of 100 seed weight. Variation in the rate and duration of seed growth has been shown between species (Egli, 1981) and within crops such as field pea (Dumoulin et al., 1994). Particularly legumes are highly sensitive to abiotic stresses during the phase of pod and seed set (Krishnamurthy et al., 2010; Devasirvatham et al., 2012). Environmental factors such as temperature and water availability affect seed growth rate and final seed size in chickpea. This shows that these characters more sensitive to the environmental conditions. Similar conspicuous differences in the mean as an effect of environment were obtained by Parameshwarappa et al. (2011) and Aher et al. (2014). Moderate to wide range of variability was noticed for all the characters except for number of primary branches per plant in both the seasons. Hence selection for these traits is expected to be effective in the material studied. Similar observations on occurrence of moderate to large variability for different characters has been made by Shweta et al. (2013), Aher et al. (2014). The PCV and GCV values revealed ample of variability at both these levels (Table 2, 3). The higher GCV and PCV was recorded for number of seeds per plant and 100 seed weight in both the seasons and number of primary branches per plant, biomass per plant, number of pods per plant and grain yield per plant during second season only, indicating that variation in genotypes contributed markedly towards total variability for the above characters. Therefore there is a greater scope for selection to improve these characters. As expected, the PCV was invariably higher than GCV for all the characters indicating influence of the environment upon these characters. The extent of difference between GCV and PCV for all the characters were relatively more in case of first season compared to second season. This indicates effect of environment i.e. end season
Table 1. Mean sum of squares for different traits studied in chickpea genotypes during rabi 2014-15 (first season) and rabi 2015-16 (second season) Sources
Df
X1
X2
First season Replication Genotypes Error S.Em. CD at 5 % CD at 1 %
1 49 49 -
13.69 80.56** 19.87 3.12 6.27 8.36
0.36 90.18** 12.05 2.43 4.88 6.51
Second season Replication 1 Genotypes 56 Error 56 S.Em. CD at 5 % CD at 1 % -
X4
X5
24.01 36.00 88.92 59.73** 35.74** 32.13** 8.01 6.93 5.37 1.98 1.84 1.62 3.98 3.70 3.26 5.30 4.94 4.34
X6
X7
0.48 14.19 0.71** 3.65** 0.13 1.62 0.25 0.89 0.50 1.79 0.67 2.39
X8
X9
X10
X11
X12
X13
5.77 41.84 41.84 6.07 1.17 1.22 9.06** 75.88** 72.82** 47.45** 3.91** 64.25** 2.54 6.8 8.56 0.60 1.09 14.12 1.11 1.82 2.04 0.54 0.73 2.63 2.24 3.66 4.11 1.09 1.47 5.28 2.99 4.89 5.49 1.46 1.96 7.04
1.06 0.87 2.24 8.42 7.17 0.95 10.26 0.03 0.33 2.50 1.53 0.94 19.05 132.59** 122.07** 129.53** 80.88** 50.62** 0.99** 2.39** 19.30** 45.82** 54.66** 50.06** 3.70** 187.85** 5.48 4.39 5.26 2.82 5.12 0.08 0.95 3.21 6.99 16.23 1.69 1.24 38.35 1.64 1.46 1.6 1.17 1.58 0.20 0.68 1.25 1.85 2.82 0.91 0.78 4.34 3.28 2.94 3.22 2.35 3.17 0.40 1.36 2.51 3.71 5.65 1.82 1.56 8.69 4.37 3.91 4.28 3.13 4.23 0.53 1.82 3.35 4.94 7.53 2.43 2.08 11.57
*Significant at 5 % level;
19 Green Farming
X3
**Significant at 1 % level.
268
Desai et al.
Green Farming 8 (2)
Table 2. Estimates of mean, range and different genetic parameters for different traits in chickpea genotypes during rabi 2014-15 (first season) 2
Characters
Mean
Range
GCV (%)
PCV (%)
h (BS) (%)
GA
GAM (%)
X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 X10 X11 X12 X13
40.41 45.76 55.81 77.06 33.30 3.07 6.42 11.40 28.34 28.74 22.25 6.11 53.37
30.00-54.00 34.00-61.00 41.00-69.00 67.00-87.50 25.50-42.99 1.98-4.33 3.49-9.83 7.25-16.87 17.83-40.33 18.00-41.50 11.90-34.05 3.11-10.56 39.84-68.45
13.63 13.65 9.11 4.92 10.98 17.47 15.68 15.82 19.97 20.44 21.74 19.41 9.38
17.53 15.62 10.42 5.99 13.00 21.05 25.32 21.12 22.48 22.36 22.02 25.89 11.72
60.43 76.42 76.35 67.49 71.36 68.90 38.36 56.13 78.96 83.55 97.46 56.23 63.97
8.23 11.25 9.15 6.42 6.36 0.91 1.28 2.78 10.37 11.06 9.84 1.83 8.24
21.83 24.59 16.40 8.33 19.11 29.88 20.01 24.42 38.49 36.57 56.67 38.43 19.80
Days to flower initiation (days) Days to 50 % flowering (days) Days to pod initiation (days) Days to physiological maturity (days) Plant height (cm) No. of primary branches per plant No. of secondary branches per plant Biomass per plant (g) Number of pods per plant Number of seeds per plant 100 seed weight (g) Grain yield per plant (g) Harvest index (%)
moisture stress that adversely affected overall crop growth and yield. It is evident from the results (Table 2, 3) that the there is a lack of genetic variability in the material studied for the characters like days to physiological maturity and number of secondary branches per plant since these traits had moderate GCV to low GCV in both the seasons. When we examine the available reports (Aher et al., 2014 and Peerzada et al., 2014) it is evident that, variation for these characters in chickpea is generally less. Therefore in order to improve these traits it is necessary to create variability by hybridization or mutagenesis. As against this presence of abundant genetic variability for yield components like number of seeds per plant and 100 seed weight during both the seasons and number of primary branches per plant, biomass, number of pods per plant and grain yield per plant at second season (higher GCV and PCV). The sufficient variation available for these traits can be exploited by direct selection among the collection of genotypes. Further the traits or recombination of traits can be improved by involving carefully chosen parents in hybridization. The high h2 with high expected GAM was observed for days to flower initiation, days to 50 % flowering, number of primary
branches per plant, number of pods per plant and 100 seed weight in both the seasons (Table 2, 3). This indicates the less effect of environment on these traits. Therefore simple selection based on phenotypic values for these traits could be useful in improving these characters. Such an association of high heritability and high genetic advance were also reported by Peerzada et al. (2014) and Thakur et al. (2015).
Association studies : The grain yield per plant showed positive significant correlations at both genotypic and phenotypic level with biomass per plant, number of pods, number of seeds per plant in both the seasons (Table 4 and 5) and harvest index in first season only (Table 4). In any given environment, grain yield is a function of biomass and the harvest index. Hence, grain yield can be increased either by increasing the biomass or the harvest index or both. In the short-duration, warmer chickpea environments, such as Southern India major constraint is poor biomass. In the present study, the biomass exhibited high variability (high GCV and PCV) and also significant positive association with grain yield. This indicates good scope of improving grain yield by selecting for higher biomass in the genotypes chosen for the present study. The biomass in turn has
Table 3. Estimates of mean, range and different genetic parameters for different traits in chickpea genotypes during rabi 2015-16 (Second season) 2
Characters
Mean
Range
GCV (%)
PCV (%)
h (BS) (%)
GA
GAM (%)
X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 X10 X11 X12 X13
43.34 49.78 56.08 91.35 34.00 2.46 4.93 10.32 18.08 18.93 25.67 4.59 45.71
24.50-55.00 28.00-67.00 31.00-79.50 76.50-99.50 24.30-50.40 1.30-3.80 3.10-6.60 4.09-19.14 9.60-33.20 9.10-35.50 14.50-37.40 2.39-9.85 25.40-66.58
18.39 15.40 14.05 6.83 14.02 27.30 9.23 27.46 24.36 23.15 20.30 24.15 18.91
19.17 15.97 14.63 7.08 15.52 29.67 21.87 32.49 28.41 31.44 20.93 34.26 23.26
92.05 93.05 92.19 93.26 81.62 84.64 17.63 71.43 73.53 54.20 94.12 49.69 66.09
15.75 15.24 15.59 12.42 8.87 1.27 0.39 4.93 7.78 6.64 10.42 1.61 14.47
36.35 30.61 27.79 13.60 26.10 51.74 8.05 47.81 43.04 35.11 40.58 35.07 31.67
Days to flower initiation (days) Days to 50 % flowering (days) Days to pod initiation (days) Days to physiological maturity (days) Plant height (cm) No. of primary branches per plant No. of secondary branches per plant Biomass per plant (g) Number of pods per plant Number of seeds per plant 100 seed weight (g) Grain yield per plant (g) Harvest index (%)
Note - GCV, PCV, GAM ; 0-10 - Low;
10-20 - Medium;
2
20 and above - High; h ; 0-30 - Low; 30-60 - Medium; 60 and above - High
20
March-April 2017
269
Genetic variability and correlation in normal and late sown chickpea
Table 4. Genotypic and phenotypic correlations among the 13 quantitative traits studied in chickpea genotypes during rabi 2014-15 (Season one) Characters X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 X10 X11 X12 X13
G P G P G P G P G P G P G P G P G P G P G P G P G P
X1
X2
X3
X4
X5
X6
X7
X8
1 1
0.922** 0.882** 1 1
0.952** 0.832** 0.958** 0.877** 1 1
0.754** 0.578** 0.667** 0.544** 0.686** 0.650** 1 1
0.655** 0.429** 0.663** 0.497** 0.778** 0.525** 0.816** 0.516** 1 1
0.532** 0.327** 0.413** 0.319** 0.464** 0.334** 0.277** 0.233* 0.433** 0.256** 1 1
-0.669** -0.191 -0.534** -0.226* -0.415** -0.209* -0.294** 0.168 -0.383** -0.099 -0.093 0.009 1 1
0.059 0.048 0.015 0.014 -0.01 -0.024 -0.212* -0.137 -0.145 -0.104 0.213* 0.065 0.157 0.001 1 1
X9 -0.239* -0.144 -0.288** -0.164 -0.246* -0.137 -0.250* -0.164 -0.260** -0.211* -0.15 -0.072 0.200* 0.144 0.466** 0.361** 1 1
X10
X11
X12
X13
-0.075 -0.066 -0.134 -0.083 -0.121 -0.074 -0.145 -0.11 -0.144 -0.089 -0.088 -0.035 0.092 0.09 0.516** 0.405** 0.952** 0.930** 1 1
-0.142 -0.095 -0.630** -0.047 -0.002 0.003 -0.005 -0.009 0.300** 0.241* -0.244* -0.214* 0.044 0.027 -0.198* -0.149 -0.069 -0.053 -0.071 -0.062 1 1
-0.124 -0.103 -0.147 -0.097 -0.132 -0.118 -0.374** -0.275** -0.224* -0.146 0.227* 0.063 0.396** 0.103 0.883** 0.896** 0.488** 0.397** 0.540** 0.430** -0.226* -0.167 1 1
-0.368** -0.302** -0.341** -0.251* -0.250* -0.218* -0.422** -0.359** -0.208* -0.143 0.139 0.044 0.511** 0.226* 0.125 0.165 0.256** 0.238* 0.291** 0.242* -0.172 -0.129 0.567** 0.574** 1 1
*Significant at 5 % level; **Significant at 1 % level. Full abbreviations for 13 characters as given in Table 2.
positive association with yield components. Hence, the traits like number of pods and seeds per plant are easily visible can be used as selection criteria to increase yield. Similar results were obtained by Padmavathi et al. (2013). The crop sown in the rabi season under residual and receding soil moisture conditions is exposed to terminal moisture stress that restricts the flowering period and hasten maturity, thereby causing poor yields. This was evident in the present study. In late sown condition (rabi 2014-15), the grain yield was negatively associated with all the phenological parameters. Even in timely sown condition (rabi 2015-16) the grain yield was negatively associated with all parameters of flowering except days to physiological maturity. Therefore, in southern India development of short duration genotypes can be helpful to attain higher grain yield. These results are in accordance with study conducted by Ramanappa et al. (2013). In late sown condition (rabi 2014-15) reproductive characters have shown significant negative association with number of secondary branches and 100 seed weight. In late sown condition the crop suffers from end season moisture stress and increased temperature. This has resulted in advancing of reproductive phase by reduction in number of days to flower initiation (from 43.34 to 40.41 days), days to 50 per cent flowering (from 49.78 to 45.76 days), number of days to pod initiation (from 56.08 to 55.81 days) and physiological maturity (from 91.35 to 77.06 days). The association study revealed that, the end season stress factors
21 Green Farming
not only resulted in advancing of reproductive phase but affected the sink size (100 seed weight). Further, genotypes fail to accumulate biomass under restricted situation. Therefore, selection under such environments should properly balance yield indices with maturity for improved productivity. In the present material, the increase in plant height would result in decrease in pod number per plant which in turn cause reduction in the grain yield. Hence, to develop genotypes with increased plant height for mechanical harvesting, the breakage of this association is very much essential. This could be achieved through mutation breeding. Similar results were obtained in chickpea by Padmavathi et al. (2013).
REFERENCES Aher B M, Desai A, Pithia M S and Kalyanrao. 2014. Genetic variability of yield and its contributing characters in Kabuli chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Trends Biosci. 7 (23) : 4025-4032. Anonymous. 2014. Agriculture Statistics at a Glance. Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi. pp. 94-96. Burton G W and De Vane G M. 1953. Estimating heritability in tall Fescue (Festuca arundinaceae) from replicated clonal material. Agron. J. 45 : 478-471. Devasirvatham V, Gaur P M, Mallikarjuna N, Tokachichu R N, Trethowan R M and Tan D K Y. 2012. Effect of high temperature on the reproductive development of chickpea genotypes under controlled environments. Funct. Plant Biol. 39 : 1009-1018.
270
Desai et al.
Green Farming 8 (2)
Table 5. Genotypic and phenotypic correlations among the 13 quantitative traits studied in chickpea genotypes during rabi 2015-16 (Season two) Characters X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 X10 X11 X12 X13
X1 G P G P G P G P G P G P G P G P G P G P G P G P G P
1 1
X2 0.794** 0.778** 1 1
X3
X4
X5
X6
0.744** 0.727** 0.815** 0.797** 1 1
0.315** 0.296** 0.233* 0.231* 0.309** 0.296** 1 1
0.623** 0.541** 0.632** 0.546** 0.686** 0.597** 0.329** 0.303** 1 1
0.702** 0.619** 0.572** 0.491** 0.525** 0.466** 0.249** 0.233* 0.632** 0.529** 1 1
X7
X8
0.584** -0.026 0.228* -0.045 -0.035 0.018 -0.032 0.011 0.260** 0.068 0.103 0.056 0.029 0.190* 0.044 0.162 -0.065 0.067 0.145 0.035 0.309** 0.018 0.262** 0.026 1 0.051 1 -0.026 1 1
X9 -0.139 -0.126 -0.208* -0.196* -0.17 -0.139 0.039 0.03 -0.016 0.006 -0.107 -0.039 -0.177 -0.005 0.525** 0.434** 1 1
X10
X11
X12
X13
-0.152 -0.125 -0.205* -0.168 -0.210* -0.14 -0.036 -0.016 -0.001 0.008 -0.135 -0.035 -0.331** -0.103 0.503** 0.411** 0.996** 0.891** 1 1
0.203* 0.190* 0.138 0.137 0.198* 0.190* -0.028 -0.033 0.355** 0.306** 0.155 0.103 0.17 0.05 -0.091 -0.048 -0.015 -0.003 -0.082 -0.021 1 1
-0.096 -0.102 -0.132 -0.096 -0.074 -0.052 0.012 0.016 0.041 0.005 -0.051 -0.001 -0.02 -0.042 0.656** 0.683** 0.531** 0.744** 0.641** 0.753** -0.051 -0.004 1 1
0.021 0.006 -0.115 -0.09 -0.117 -0.109 -0.310** -0.231** 0.01 -0.02 -0.049 -0.003 0.219* 0.06 -0.602** -0.367** 0.412** 0.378** 0.390** 0.406** 0.134 0.102 0.166 0.384* 1 1
*Significant at 5 % level; **Significant at 1 % level. Full abbreviations for 13 characters as given in Table 2.
Dumoulin V, Ney B and Eteve G. 1994. Variability of seed and plant development in pea. Crop Sci. 34 : 992–8. Egli D B. 1981. Species differences in seed growth characteristics. Field Crops Res. 4 : 1–12. Gaur P M, Jukanti A K and Varshney R K. 2012. Impact of genomic technologies on chickpea breeding strategies. Agron. J. 2 : 199221. Hanson G H, Robinson H F and Comstock R E. 1956. Biometrical studies of yield in segregating populations of Korean Lespedeza. Agron. J. 48 : 267-282.
Padmavathi P V, Murthy S S, Rao V S and Lal A M. 2013. Correlation and path coefficient analysis in kabuli chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). IJABPT. 4 (3) : 107-110. Panse V G and Sukhatme P M. 1961. Statistical Methods for Agricultural Workers. ICAR, Publication, New Delhi. pp. 359. Parameshwarappa S G, Salimath P M, Upadhyaya H D, Patil S S and Kajjidoni S T. 2011. Genetic variability studies in minicore collections of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) under different environments. Indian J. Plant Genet. Resour. 24 (1) : 43–48.
Hanson W D. 1986. Control of dry matter accumulation in soybean seeds. Crop Sci. 26 : 1195–200.
Peerzada O H, Chaurasia A K and Ahmad N I. 2014. Evaluation of chickpea germplasm (desi) (Cicer arietinum L.) for yield and yield contributing traits. The Biosci. 9 (4) : 1805-1809.
Johnson H W, Robinson H F and Comstock H F. 1955. Estimates of genetic and environmental variability in soybeans. Agron. J. 47 : 314-318.
Ramanappa T M, Chandrashekara K and Nuthan D. 2013. Analysis of variability for economically important traits in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Int. J. Res. Appl. Nat. Soc. Sci. 1 (3) : 133-140.
Krishnamurthy L, Kashiwagi J, Gaur P M, Upadhyaya H D and Vadez V. 2010. Sources of tolerance to terminal drought in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) minicore germplasm. Field Crops Res. 119 : 322-330.
Shweta, Yadav A K and Yadav R K. 2013. Studies on genetic variability, heritability and genetic advance in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L). J. Food Legumes. 26 (3) : 139-140.
Leport L, Turner N C, French R J, Tennant D, Thomson B D and Siddique K H M. 1998. Water relations, gas exchange and growth of cool-season grain legume in a Mediterranean-type environment. European J. Agron. 9 : 295-303. Muehlbauer F J and Singh K B. 1987. Genetics of chickpea. In: Saxena, M. C., Singh, K.B. (eds.). The Chickpea. CAB International, Wallingford. pp. 99-125.
Thakur T S, Johnson P L and Nanda H C. 2015. Evaluation of desi chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes for yield and yield contributing traits under rainfed rice based cropping ecosystem of Chhattisgarh J. Food Legumes. 28 (2) : 21-26. Weber and Moorthy B R. 1950. Heritable and non-heritable relationship and variability of oil content and agronomic characteristics on the F2 generation of soybean crosses. Agron. J. 44 : 202-209.
22
