QUANTITATIVE GENETIC PARAMETERS STUDIED ON GROWTH AND BIOMASS TRAITS IN WILLOWS

S.A. HUSE¹*, N.B. SINGH², J.P. SHARMA³, R.K. ANAND^4
1College of Forestry (ACHF), Navsari Agricultural University, Navsari, 396 450, Gujarat, India
²College of Post Graduate Studies, Central Agricultural University, Umiam, 793 103, Meghalaya, India
³College of Forestry, Dr Yashwant Singh Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Solan, 173230, Himachal Pradesh, India
⁴ICAR-Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Azamgarh, 276001, Narendra Dev University of Agriculture and Technology, Faizabad, 224229 Uttar Pradesh, India
* Corresponding Author : santoshhuse@nau.in

Received : 14-10-2018     Accepted : 26-10-2018     Published : 30-10-2018
Volume : 10     Issue : 10       Pages : 534 - 537
Genetics 10.10 (2018):534-537

Keywords : Salix, tree willows, heritability, genetic gain, growth, biomass
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Authors are thankful to all institutes who have shared willow germplasm for testing in India and NBPGR for necessary import and post import procedures. Authors are also thankful to Dr Yashwant Singh Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Solan, 173230, Himachal Pradesh
Author Contribution : All authors equally contributed

Quantitative genetic parameters viz; variability, heritability, genetic gain and genetic correlation were studied on growth characteristics of willow (Salix spp.) viz., height (cm), collar diameter (mm), volume index, number of branches, number of nodes, internodal length (cm), leaf display (days), leaf area (sq. cm) and biomass parameters viz., fresh weight of shoot (g), dry weight of shoot (g), fresh weight of root (g), dry weight of root (g) and total dry biomass (g). All the growth and biomass traits showed wide ranges of values indicating the extent of variation existing in the clones. The phenotypic coefficient of variation was higher than the genotypic coefficient of variation for all the growth parameters. High heritability was recorded for height (0.958 %), collar diameter (0.927 %), volume index (0.906 %), leaf area (0.949 %), leaf display days (0.961 %) and number of branches (0.960 %). Genetic gain showed wide range (20.64% to 164.74%). This shows scope for improvement for these characters through clonal selection.

1. Ball J., Carle J. and Del Lungo A. (2005) Unasyl., 56 (2),3-9.
2. Kristinic A. (1979) Proceedings, 16th IUFRO World Congress, 39-44.
3. Sharma J.R. (1998) New Age International (P) Limited Publishers, New Delhi, pp. 19-30
4. Chaturvedi A.N. and Khanna L.S. (2000) Khanna Bandhu, Dehradun. pp. 85-115
5. Burton G.W. and DeVane E.W. (1953) Agron. J. 1,78-81
6. Johnson H.W., Robinson H.F. and Comstock R.E. (1955) Agron. J. 47,314-318.
7. Allard R.W. (1960) John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York, 485 p.
8. Vihera-Aarnio A. (1987) Bull. Finn. For. Res. Inst. 304. pp. 101-112
9. Lin J.Z. and Zsuffa L. (1993a) Silvae Genet. 42(1),41-46
10. Ronnberg-Wastljung A. and Gulberg U. (1996) Theor. Appl. Genet. 93,15-21
11. Wilcox J.R. and Jr. Farmer R.E. (1967) Silvae Genet. 16,162-165.
12. Giannini R. and Raddy S. (1992) Can. J. For. Res. 22(1), 76-81.
13. Borralho N.M.G., Almedida J.M. and Cotterill P.P. (1992) Silvae Genet. 41(2),100-105.
14. Randall W.K. and Cooper D.T. (1973) Silvae Genet. 22, 162-167.
15. Tewari S.K. Pandey D. and Joshi C.S. (1991) Golden Jubilee Symposium on Genetic Research and Education. New, Delhi, 88p.
16. Singh N.B., Kumar D., Rawat G.S., Gupta R.K., Singh K. and Negi S.S. (2001) Ind. For. 127(2), 163-172.
17. Singh N.B. (1993) Ind. J. For. 16(1), 33-38.
18. Lin J.Z. and Zsuffa L. (1993b) Silvae Genet. 42(2-3),127-131
19. Nelson C.D. and Taur C.G. (1987) Silvae Genet., 36, 216-221.
20. Lambeth C., Endo M. and Wrigaht J. (1994) For. Sci., 40(3), 397-411.
21. Barigah T.S., Saugier B., Mousseau M., Guittet J. and Ceulemans R. (1994) Ann. Sci. For., 51, 613-625.
22. Sennerby-Forse L. (1984) Can. J. For. Res., 15,531-534.
23. Flower-Ellis J.G.K. and Olsson L. (1981) SLU, Upsala, Sweden, Technical Report No. 18, 31 p.
24. Jha R.K. (2002) Ph.D. Thesis submitted to FRI Dehradun. 141p.
25. Li B., Wyekoff G.W. and Einsphar D.W. (1993) North J. Appl. For., 10,117-122.
26. Li B. and Wu R. (1996) Theor. Appl. Genet., 93,380-391.
27. Pillai S.K. and Sinha H.C. (1968) Ram Prasad and Sons, Agra, 259 p.
28. Isik F. and Toplu F. (2004) New For., 17, 175-187.
29. Gullberg (1993) For. Chronical, 69, 721-726.