IMPACT OF MOISTURE STRESS REGIMES ON YIELD AND QUALITY IN MAIZE SINGLE CROSSES

N.V. SONI¹*, H.L. DHADUK², S.M. KHANORKAR³, J.R. PATEL^4
1Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, B. A. College of Agriculture, Anand Agricultural University, Anand, 388 110, Gujarat, India
²Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, B. A. College of Agriculture, Anand Agricultural University, Anand, 388 110, Gujarat, India
³Main Maize Research Station, Anand Agricultural University, Godhra, 389 001, Gujarat, India
⁴Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, C. P. College of Agriculture, Sardarkrushinagar Dantiwada Agricultural University, Sardarkrushinagar, Gujarat, India
* Corresponding Author : soni1211@gmail.com

Received : 14-11-2017     Accepted : 21-11-2017     Published : 28-11-2017
Volume : 9     Issue : 10       Pages : 304 - 308
Genetics 9.10 (2017):304-308

Keywords : β-carotene, Maize, Moisture Stress, Stability, Yield
Academic Editor : P. C. Patel, Darshan Dharajiya, Nalin K. Pagi
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : The authors would like to thank Dr. G.C. Jadeja, Ret. Professor & Head, Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, BACA, Anand Agricultural University, Anand, Gujarat and Dr. J. S. Patel, Ret. Professor & Head, Department of Agril. Statistics, BACA, Anand Agricultural University, Anand, Gujarat for their contribution in designing this work plan
Author Contribution : This work was carried out in collaboration between all authors. Authors Dhaduk, H. L. and Khanorkar, S. M. designed the experiment. Khanorkar, S. M. provided the maize parental genotypes for the study. Author Soni, N. V. performed the research work, manag

Significant yield reduction in maize (Zea mays L.) is expected under rainfed areas in India due to climate change. The study aimed to identify genotypes with immense yield potential with good quality under moisture stress. Ten yellow kernel inbreds having a differential response to stress were used to generate forty five F1s with diallel mating design and evaluated under stress as well as irrigated condition at flowering at two locations, Anand and Derol. Soil moisture content reduced drastically up to 44% signifying enough stress, to carry out study. Genotypic mean exhibited 47.30% yield penalty under stress. This might be due to reduced rates of photosynthetic activity and unbalanced associations between plant hormones and biological processes under stress. Whereas, the grain quality attributes, protein, oil, starch and β-carotene content increased by 5.38%, 3.63%, 1.82% and 2.44% in F1s under stress in hybrids, respectively. ANOVA revealed preponderance of non-additive gene actions for days to 50% tasseling and silking, anthesis-silking interval, leaf rolling, grain yield, number of ears per plant, seed index, shelling percentage, protein, oil, starch and β-carotene content in seed. Hybrids with a good level of stress tolerance with less yield penalty involved at least one tolerant or moderately tolerant parent, although the hybrids with both the susceptible parents didn’t perform well for grain yield under stress. The overall study concluded that crosses, CM140 × IL111, IL101 × IL111 and IL103 × IL109 found promising for grain yield and β-carotene content under stress. Also, genotypes having shorter Anthesis-Silking Interval reported higher grain yield under stress.

1. Banziger M. and Araus J. (2007) Springer, Netherlands, 587-601.
2. Edmeades G.O. (2013) ISAAA: Ithaca, NY, PP. 3.
3. Bismillah Khan M., Hussain M., Raza A., Farooq S. and Jabran K. (2015) Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry,39, 193-203.
4. Kumar B., Chikkappa Karjagi G., Jat S.L., Parihar C.M., Yathish K.R., Singh V., Hooda K.S., Dass A.K., Mukri G. and Sekhar J.C. (2012) Directorate of Maize Research, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), Technical Bulletin, 2012/2, PP.32.
5. Singh A.D. (2014) “India Maize Summit ’14.” PP.11 http://www.ficci.com/spdocument/20386/India-Maize-2014_v2.pdf
6. Sharma K.D. (2011) Current science,100(11), 1615-1616.
7. Grant R.F., Jackson B.S., Kiniry J.R. and Arkin G.F. (1989) Agronomy Journal, 81,61-65.
8. Campos H., Cooper M., Edmeades G.O., Loffler C., Schussler J.R. and Ibanez M. (2006) Maydica, 51, 369-381.
9. Edmeades G.O., Bolanos J., Elings A., Ribaut J.M., Banziger M. and Westgate M.E. (2000) In: Westagate ME, Boote BJ (Eds.), Physiology and Modeling Kernel Set in Maize, CSSA Special Publication 29, CSSA, Madison, WI, PP. 43-73.
10. Munyiri S.W., Pathak R.S., Tabu I.M. and Gemenet D.C. (2010) The Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences, 8(1), 892-899.
11. Critchley W. and Siegert K. (1991) A manual for the design and construction of water harvesting schemes for plant production, Rome, PP. 15.
12. Mory C.M., Blay E., Gracen V., Charles T. and Teme N. (2014) International Journal of Material and Mechanical Engineering, 3(2),17-30.
13. Griffing B.(1956a) Australian Journal of Biological Science,9, 463-493.
14. Griffing, B.(1956b) Heridity,10,31-50.
15. Guei R.G. and Wassom C.E. (1992) Maydica, 37,157-164.
16. Betran F.J., Beck D., Banziger M. and Edmeades G.O. (2003) Crop Science, 43, 807-817.
17. Dubey L., Prasanna B.M. and Ramesh B. (2009) Indian Journal of Genetics, 69(4), 344-351.
18. Haskell D. E., Flaspohler D. J., Webster C. R. and Meyer M. W. (2012) Restoration Ecology, 20, 113–121.
19. Sadasivam S. and Manickam A. (1992) Biochemical methods. New Age International (P) Limited, Publishers.
20. Banziger M., Edmeades G.O., Beck D. and Bellon M. (2000) From theory to practice. Mexico, D.F.CIMMYT, PP.34-42.
21. Panse V.G. and Sukhatme P.V. (1967) Statistical Methods for Agricultural Workers. ICAR, New Delhi, India.
22. Eberhart S.A. and Russell W.A. (1966) Crop Science, 6, 36-40.
23. Mehasen S.A.S. and El-Gizawy N.Kh. (2010) The International Conference of Agronomy 20-22 September 2007; EL Arish, PP.26-38.
24. DMR (2014) Annual Report 2013-14, Directorate of Maize Research, Pusa Campus, New Delhi- 110 012, PP. 98.
25. Kebede H., Sui R.X., Fisher D.K., Reddy K.N., Bellaloui N. and Molin W.T. (2014) Agricultural Sciences,5, 1305-1315.
26. Kebede H., Abbas H.K., Fisher D.K. and Bellaloui N. (2012) Toxins,4, 1385-1403.
27. Soliman S.E. (2006) Mansoura University Journal of Agriculture Science, 31(12), 7525-7540.
28. Hussain M., Shah K.N., Ghafoor A., Kiani T.T. and Mahmood T. (2014) The Journal of Animal and Plant Science, 24(4), 1230-1240.
29. Wattoo F.M., Saleem M. and Sajjad M. (2014) American Journal of Plant Sciences, 5, 1945-1955.
30. Grudloyma P., Thaitad S., Papintu K. and Kaewtien S. (2010) Proceeding of the 10th Asian Regional Maize Workshop, Makassar, Indonesia, 20-23, October 2008. Mexico D.F.: CIMMYT, PP. 345-348.
31. Troyer A.F. (1996). Euphytica,92, 163-174.
32. Zaidi P.H., Maniselvan P., Srivastava A., Yadav P. and Singh R.P. (2010) Maydica, 55, 17-26.