Gene Effects for Yield and Yield Components in Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) under Irrigated and Rainfed Conditions

Abstract

Seven genetically diverse parents of chickpea were crossed in five combinations (RSG-895 x RSG-888, RSG-888 x ICC-4958, IPC-94-94 x RSG-888, CSJD-901 x RSG-931 and BG-362 x RSG-931) to develop F 1 , F 2 and F 3 hybrid progenies. Five generations viz., P 1 , P 2 , F 1 , F 2 and F 3 were grown in a compact family block design under irrigated and rainfed conditions to estimate the gene effects for yield and yield components. Scaling test 'C' and 'D' as well as joint scaling test revealed presence of epistatic in all the crosses for all the characters studied viz., days to 50% flowering, days to maturity, plant height, fruiting branches per plant, pods per plant, seeds per pod, biological yield per plant, seed yield per plant, harvest index, 100-seed weight and protein content under both the conditions. Both main effects additive (d) and dominance (h) were important for all the characters in all the crosses under both the conditions except 100-seed weight, where only additive effect was found important. Both additive x additive (i) and dominance x dominance (l) interaction effects were also important for all the characters in all the crosses under both the conditions except 100-seed weight, where only additive x additive interaction was found important. Generally, the magnitudes of dominance (h) and dominance x dominance (l) were prevailed over additive (d) and additive x additive (i) effects, respectively. Duplicate type of epistasis was observed in all the cases, where epistasis was established. Thus, it can be concluded that additive, dominance, additive x additive (i) and dominance x dominance (l) effects contributed significantly to the inheritance of various component characters in chickpea under both irrigated and rainfed conditions. These results implies the use of recurrent selection by way of intermating the desirable segregants followed by selection or biparental approach/intermating of segregants in early segregating generations for improvement of these components characters in chickpea under both the conditions.

Genetic studies for seed size and grain yield traits in kabuli chickpea

“…Since, additive and non-additive gene action were important for this trait, improvement may be possible by delaying selection to later filial generations. These findings are in agreement with Kumhar et al (2013).…”

“…Preponderance of additive effect, additive 9 additive interaction, along with complementary type of interaction showed effectiveness of selection for improving this trait. Similar results were observed by Bhardwaj and Sandhu (2007) and Kumhar et al (2013) in chickpea.…”

“…A better understanding of gene actions involved in seed size will facilitate breeding for large seed size in kabuli chickpea. Earlier studies have reported monogenic (Argikar 1956), digenic (Ghatge 1993;Upadhyaya et al 2006;Hossain et al 2010), oligogenic (Patil and D'Cruze 1964) and polygenic (Niknejad et al 1971;Kumar and Singh 1995;Malhotra et al 1997;Kumhar et al 2013) inheritance of seed size depending on the number of genes segregating in the populations studied. According to Athwal and Sandha (1967), Smithson et al (1985) and Kumar and Singh (1995), small seed size was dominant over large one.…”

“…In contrast, Niknejad et al (1971) stated that large seed size was partially dominant over the small seed size. Both additive and dominance genetic effects have been reported to be important for seed size by previous researchers (Girase and Deshmukh 2000;Karami and Talebi 2013;Kumhar et al 2013). As the additive gene action relates to homozygosity, standard selection procedures (like mass selection, progeny selection, etc.)…”

Inheritance and relationships of flowering time and seed size in kabuli chickpea

“…It has also been considered as an important factor for subsequent plant growth parameters including germination, seedling vigour and seedling mass (Narayanan et al 1981;Dahiya et al 1985). Earlier studies have reported monogenic (Argikar 1956), digenic (Ghatge 1993;Upadhyaya et al 2006;Hossain et al 2010), oligogenic (Patil and D'Cruze 1964) and polygenic (Niknejad et al 1971;Kumar and Singh 1995;Malhotra et al 1997;Kumhar et al 2013) inheritance of seed size depending on the number of genes segregating in the populations studied. According to Smithson et al (1985) and Kumar and Singh (1995), small seed size was dominant over large one.…”