2016
DOI: 10.1590/1984-70332016v16n4a47
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Genetic effects and potential parents in cowpea

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
11
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
2
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Significant gca indicates that at least one of the parental genotypes differ from others in relation to number of favourable genes with additive effects whereas, significant sca indicates that all the hybrids have higher or lower performance than expected, based on gca (Oliboni et al 2013). Similar results were recorded by Badhe et al (2016), Dias et al (2016) in cowpea and Dharmendra et al (2002) in pea for gca and sca for all the traits. The ratio of gca and sca variances was less than unity for all the traits except harvest index suggesting the influence of non-additive gene action in inheritance of all the traits.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 73%
“…Significant gca indicates that at least one of the parental genotypes differ from others in relation to number of favourable genes with additive effects whereas, significant sca indicates that all the hybrids have higher or lower performance than expected, based on gca (Oliboni et al 2013). Similar results were recorded by Badhe et al (2016), Dias et al (2016) in cowpea and Dharmendra et al (2002) in pea for gca and sca for all the traits. The ratio of gca and sca variances was less than unity for all the traits except harvest index suggesting the influence of non-additive gene action in inheritance of all the traits.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 73%
“…The role of both additive and non-additive gene action in the inheritance of yield and its components traits have also been reported by many other workers in blackgram (Singh and Singh, 2005;Karthikeyan, et al 2007;Bhagirath, et al 2009;Chakraborty, et al 2010;Panigrahi, et al 2015;Vadivel, et al 2019), greengram (Singh, et al 2007;Patil, et al 2011;Thangavel and Thirugnanakumar, 2011;Singh et al, 2016) and cowpea (Egbadzor et al, 2013;Dias et al, 2016). The substantial presence of non-allelic interactions has also been reported by Gupta (2005), Khan et al (2004), Chand (2000, Adeyanju et al (2012), Ramakant and Srivastava (2012) and Bindra et al (2017) in backgram; Thangavel and Thirugnanakumar (2011) and Singh et al (2016) in mungbean; and Tchiagam et al (2011) in cowpea.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 52%
“…Comparatively the values of heterosis for pods per cluster were less (0.14 to 31.1 per cent, -27.4 to 18.4 per cent and -9.1 to 47.1 per cent respectively) indicating that the number of pods per plant was not dependent on the number of pods per cluster. The percentage of crosses with significant heterosis for pods per plant (52 per cent and 44 per cent) over mid and better parent indicated the equal involvement of additive and non-additive gene action for this trait (Dias et al, 2016). The magnitude of heterosis for pod yield per plant ranged from 4.1 to 112.3 per cent, -27.3 to 74.1 per cent and 11.8 to 109.5 per cent over mid, better and standard check respectively (Patil et al, 2014).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 96%