GENETIC ANALYSIS FOR POD YIELD AND QUALITY TRAITS IN FRENCH BEAN (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)

H.E. PATIL¹*, S. AKALADE², B.K. PATEL³, M. SARKAR^4
1Hill Millet Research Station, Waghai (Dangs), 394 730, Navsari Agricultural University, Navsari, 396 450, India
²Hill Millet Research Station, Waghai (Dangs), 394 730, Navsari Agricultural University, Navsari, 396 450, India
³Hill Millet Research Station, Waghai (Dangs), 394 730, Navsari Agricultural University, Navsari, 396 450, India
⁴Hill Millet Research Station, Waghai (Dangs), 394 730, Navsari Agricultural University, Navsari, 396 450, India
* Corresponding Author : mailme.harshalpatil@rediffmail.com

Received : 25-09-2018     Accepted : 12-10-2018     Published : 30-10-2018
Volume : 10     Issue : 10       Pages : 514 - 517
Genetics 10.10 (2018):514-517

Keywords : Genetic evaluation, vegetable type French bean, pod yield and quality traits
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Author thankful to Hill Millet Research Station, Waghai (Dangs), 394 730, Navsari Agricultural University, Navsari, 396 450, India
Author Contribution : All author equally contributed

Genetic analysis by using path coefficient and correlation studies of nine released bushy type cultivars (Arka Anoop, Akra Komal, Arka Arjun, Arka Sharath, Arka Suvidha, Pant Anupama, VL Beans-2, Phule Surekha and Kashi Sampan) of French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), a high valued vegetable genotypes was studied by using variability, correlation and path coefficient analysis to find out the variation, association among characters and to measure the direct and indirect contribution of twelve characters on fresh pod yield per plant. Genotypic and phenotypic coefficient of variation were of high magnitude for plant height, 100 green pod weight, 100 green seed weight, days to 50 % flowering, pod length, pod width as well as for number of primary branches per plant. The estimate of high heritability (bs) accompanied with high-expected genetic advance for green pod weight per plant and days to 50 % flowering indicating the presence of additive gene action in the expression of these characters which indicates that such traits can be improved by direct selection. The genotypic correlation studies of pod length (0.2266), pod width (0.1127), number of seeds per pod (0.0026), 100-green pod weight (0.0383), 100-green seed weight (0.3583), pod thickness (0.4283) and seed size (0.2260) indicated that green pod yield per plant exhibited stable positive association with traits expect days to 50 % flowering (-0.1917), number of primary branches (-0.0479) and plant height (-0.0342). While the phenotypic correlation revealed that, days to 50 % flowering (-0.1731), number of primary branches (-0.0358) and days to maturity (-0.0387) were negatively correlated and the rest of all characters were positively correlated with green pod yield per plant. The direct effects of path coefficient analysis revealed that the green pod yield per plant had positive and was significant with days to 50 % flowering (0.0588), pod width (0.9276), pod length (0.4526), number of seeds per pod (0.0062), 100 green pod weight (0.0652), 100 green seed weight (0.2128), pod thickness (0.3972), seed size (0.3709) and the rest of the effects of few characters were negative for number of primary branches (-0.0246) and days to maturity (-0.0068). Moreover, it was noticed that high indirect contribution was contributed through green pod yield per pod with most of the yield contributing traits. Hence, the traits viz., 100 green pod weight, days to 50 % flowering, number of seeds per pod and 100 green seed weight should be given more consideration while deciding about selection criteria for vegetable type genotypes in French beans.

1. Arun Kumar P., Reddy R. V. S. K., Pandravada S. R., Durga Rani Ch. V. and Chaitanya V. (2014) Plant Archives, 14 (1), 313-319.
2. Atilla Dursum (2007) World J. Agric. Sci., 3(1), 12-16.
3. Bhushan K. B., Sandeep Jadli, Omvati Verma and Goswami A. K. (2008) International Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 4 (2),667-669.
4. Burton G.W. and Dewane E. H. (1953) Agron. J., 478-481.
5. Chetukuri Anuradha, Vijayalaksmi P., Bhargavi V., Pawan Kumar D., Sreelaxmi A. and Siddiq E. A. (2013) Adv. in Bioresearch, 4 (2),129-134.
6. Dewey D. R. and Lu K. H. (1959) Agron. J., 51, 515-518.
7. Jay Prakash and Ram R.B. (2014) International Journal of Innovative Science, Engineering & Technology, 1 (6), 41-50.
8. Johnson D. R., Lueddress V. D. and Briggs G. M. (1955) Agron. J. 47,109-111.
9. Mishra S., Kumar M. and Sahu G. S. (2008) The Orissa Journal of Horticulture, 36 (2), 108-113.
10. Ponnuswamy V., Irulappan I., Thamburai S. and Shanmugasundaram S. (1983) South Indian Hort., 29-31.
11. Rai N., Asati B.S., Yadav D.S. and Singh A.K. (2004) Veg. Sci., 31(2), 138-141.
12. Rai N., Asati B.S. and Singh A.K. (2009) Legume Research, 32 (2), 166-172.
13. Shah A., Lal S.D., Seth J.N. and Pant C.C. (1986) Prog. Hort. 18, 89-93.
14. Singh B.K., Singh B.P. and Ram H.H. (2000) Prog. Hort. 32(2),176-182.
15. Singh R.K. and Chaudhari B.D. (1977) Pp.39-68.
16. Sureja A.K. and Sharma R.R. (2000) Indian J. Hort., 57 (3), 243-247.
17. Teerawat Sarutayophat (2012) Songklanakarin Journal of Science and Technology, 34 (3), 273-277.
18. Ziqiang Wang and Danying Wang, (2001) In: Sec. Int. Veg. Soybean Conf., pp. 187-190.
19. Vijayalakshmi P., Anuradha Ch., Pavankumar D., Sreelaxmi A., Anuradha G. (2013) Int. J. of Scientific and Res. Publications, 3(4), 1-6.