GENETIC CHARACTERIZATION FOR ECONOMIC AND BIOCHEMICAL TRAITS IN BREAD WHEAT (TRITICUM AESTIVUM L.) GENOTYPES OVER THE GENERATION

ASHWANI KUMAR¹*, A.K. RAZDAN², MANMOHAN SHARMA³, VIVAK SHARMA⁴, NIMIT KUMAR^5
1Division of Plant Breeding and Genetics, Shre-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Jammu, Jammu, 180009, India
²Division of Plant Breeding and Genetics, Shre-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Jammu, Jammu, 180009, India
³School of Biotechnology, Shre-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Jammu, Jammu, 180009, India
⁴Division of Plant Breeding and Genetics, Rajasthan Agricultural Research Institute, Durgapura, Sri Karan Narendra Agriculture University, Jobner, Rajasthan, 303329
⁵Department of Crop Improvement, CSK Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur, 176062, India
* Corresponding Author : ashwani9961kumar@gmail.com

Received : 21-06-2018     Accepted : 27-06-2018     Published : 30-06-2018
Volume : 10     Issue : 6       Pages : 455 - 459
Genetics 10.6 (2018):455-459

Keywords : Bread wheat, Combining ability, GCA, SCA, Additive, Non-additive
Academic Editor : Dr Deepak Kumar, Dr Saripalli Gautam M
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Author thankful to Shre-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Jammu, Jammu, 180009, India
Author Contribution : All author equally contributed

Eight parental genotypes along with their 28 F1 hybrids and 28 F2 generations of wheat were evaluated to study the combining ability in a randomized complete block design with three replications during 2016-17 at SKUAST-Jammu, India. Mean sum of squares due to GCA and SCA were found to be highly significant for all the traits studied in both generations except number of effective tillers per plant in F2 generation for GCA, indicating that both additive and non-additive genes were controlling these traits. The magnitude of SCA variance were greater than GCA variance for most of the traits in both the generations indicated that non-additive type of gene effects were more pronounced than those of additive gene effect showed significant GCA effects for grain yield per plant. In F1 generation three crosses with both parent as poor combiners; five crosses with one parent as good combiner and one cross with both parent as good combiners and in F2 generation six crosses with both parent as poor combiners; four crosses with one parent as good combiner and one cross with both parent as good combiners were found to be desirable crosses for grain yield per plant and biochemical traits.

1. Gupta P.K., Langridge P. and Mir R.R. (2010) Mol Breeding, 26(2), 145-161.
2. Ortiz R., Sayre K.D., Govaerts, B., Gupta, R., Subbarao G.V., Ban T., Hodson D., Dixon J.M., Ortiz-Monasterio J.I. and Reynolds M. (2008) Agri., Ecosyst. Environ., 126, 46-58.
3. Anonymous (2017) Annual report 2016-17, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers welfare, [] J.F., Hammond J.J. and Roath W.W. (1980) Crop Sci., 20, [] G.P., Anand I.J. and Sharma R.P. (1984) Indian J. Genet., A, 447-451.
6. Sherrif N.M., Appadurai R. and Rangasamy M. (1985) Indian J. Agri. Sci., 55, 315-318.
7. Griffing B. 1956a. Heredity, 10, 31-50.
8. Joshi S.K., Sharma S.N., Singhania D.L. and Sain R.S. (2004) Hereditas, 141(2), 115-121.
9. Rahim M.A., Salam A., Saeed A., Shakeel A. and Abbas G. (2006) J. Agri. Res., 44(3), 175-180.
10. Saad F.F. (1999) Australian J. Agri. Sci., 30(l), 31-42.
11. Iqbal, M. and Khan, A. A. (2006) Int. J. Agri. & Biol., 8(5), 684-687.
12. Kamaluddin K., Singh R.M., Prasad L.C, Abdin M.Z. and Joshi A.K. (2007) Genet. Mol. Biol., 30(2), 411-416.
13. Singh R.K. and Chaudhary B.D. (1979) Biometrical Methods In Quantitative Genetics. Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi, India.
14. Akram Z., Ajmal S.U., Khan K.S., Qureshi R. and Zubair M. (2011) Pakistan J. Bot., 43, 221-231.
15. Baloch M.J., Mallano I.A., Baloch A.W., Jatoi W.A. and Veesar N. F. (2011) Pakistan J. Sci. & Indust. Res., 54,117-121.
16. Shabbir G., Hussain N.H., Akram Z. and Tabassum M.I. (2011) J. Agri. Res., 49, 1-9.
17. Mahpara S., Ali Z. and Ahsan M. (2008) Int. J. Agri. Biol., 10, 599-604.
18. Yucel C., Baloch F.S. and Ozkan H. (2009) Turkish J. Agri. & Forestry, 33, 525-535.
19. Dhadhal B.A., Dobariya K.L., Ponkia H.P. and Jivani L.L. (2008) Int. J. Agri. Sci., 4(1), 66-72.
20. Siddique M., Ali S., Malik M.F.A. and Awan S.I. (2004) Sarhad J. Agri., 20(4), 485-487.
21. Singh V., Krishna R., Singh S. and Vikram P. (2012) Indian J. Agri. Sci., 82, 11.
22. Padhar P.R., Chovatia V.P., Jivani L.L. and Dobariya K.L. (2013) Int. J. Agri. Sci., 9(1), 49-53.
23. Kaukab S., Saeed M.S. and Rehman A.U. (2014) Universal J. Agri. Res., 2(7), 272-277.
24. Singh I. (1998) HAU J. Res., 28, 145-149.
25. Joshi S.K., Sharma S.N., Singhania D.L. and Sain R.S. (2003) Acta Agronomica Hung., 51, 139-147.
26. Desai S.A., Lohithaswa H.C., Hanchinal R.R., Patie B.N., Kalappanavar I.K. and Math K.K. (2005) Indian J. Genet., 65, 311-312.
27. Kumar A., Mishra V.K., Vyas R.P. and Singh V. (2011) J. Pl. Breed. & Crop Sci., 3(10), 209-217.
28. Pancholi S.R., Sharma S.N., Sharma Y. and Maloo S.R. (2012) Crop Res. (Hisar), 43(1/2/3), 131-141.
29. Singh K., Singh U.B. and Sharma S.N. (2013) J. Wheat Res., 5(1), 63-67.
30. Kumar D. and Kerkh S.A. (2014) Supplement on Genet. & Pl. Breed., 9(4), 1725-1731.
31. Farooq J., Khaliq I., Akbar M., Mag I.V.P. and Hussain M. (2015) Annals Romanian Society for Cell Biol., 21(3), 71-81.
32. Kant L., Mahajan V. and Gupta H.S. (2011) J. Pl. Breed. & Genet., 43(2), 91-106.
33. Kumar A., Harshwardhan, Kumar A. and Prasad B. (2015) J. Hill Agri., 6(1), 237-245.