EXPLOITATION OF GENETIC VARIABILITY AND TRAIT ASSOCIATION ANALYSIS FOR VARIOUS QUANTITATIVE TRAITS IN ADVANCE BREEDING LINES OF DESI CHICKPEA (CICER ARIETINUM L.)

R.S. SOLANKI¹*, S. KUMAWAT², M. BISWAL³, A. BABBAR^4
1Department of Plant Breeding & Genetics, Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Adhartal, Jabalpur, 482004, Madhya Pradesh, India
²Department of Plant Breeding & Genetics, Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Adhartal, Jabalpur, 482004, Madhya Pradesh, India
³Department of Plant Breeding & Genetics, Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Adhartal, Jabalpur, 482004, Madhya Pradesh, India
⁴Department of Plant Breeding & Genetics, Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Adhartal, Jabalpur, 482004, Madhya Pradesh, India
* Corresponding Author : ravindrasolankijnkvv@gmail.com

Received : 03-08-2019     Accepted : 25-08-2019     Published : 30-08-2019
Volume : 11     Issue : 8       Pages : 634 - 636
Genetics 11.8 (2019):634-636

Keywords : Chickpea, Correlation, Path analysis, Heritability, Genetic advance, Seed yield
Academic Editor : Dr J. M. Patel
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Authors are thankful to Department of Plant Breeding & Genetics, Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Adhartal, Jabalpur, 482004, Madhya Pradesh, India
Author Contribution : All authors equally contributed

This study was conducted on 45 advance breeding lines of desi chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) to determine heritability, variability and association analysis for yield and its related traits. Genotypic and phenotypic coefficient of variation found high for seed yield per plant, number of effective pods per plant, number of effective pods per plant, biological yield, number of primary branches and number of secondary branches. High heritability coupled with high genetic advance as percent of mean was registered for seed yield per plant followed by biological yield, number of effective pods per plant and total number of pods per plant. The trait association analysis revealed seed yield per plant showed positive and significant correlation with biological yield, number of effective pods per plant, total number of pods per plant and days to maturity, while significant negative correlation with days to flower initiation days to 50% flowering and pod initiation. Number of effective pods per plant, total number of pods per plant, biological yield and harvest index exhibited high direct positive effect on seed yield per plant. Research findings suggested genotypes having high biological yield with more secondary branches, total number of pods per plant and number of effective pods per plant should be considered selection criteria for improving seed yield in chickpea.

1. Agrawal T., Kumar A., Kumar S., Kumar A., Kumar R.R., Kumar S. and Singh P.K. (2018) Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci., 7(2), 1633-1642.
2. Alemu B., Tesfaye K., Haileselassie T. and Lule D. (2017) Int. J. Genet. Mol. Biol.., 9(4), pp. 21-25.
3. Ali Q., Tahir M.H.N, Sadaqat H.A., Arshad S., Farooq J., Ahsan M., Waseem M. and Iqbal A. (2011) Journal of Bacteriology Research, 3(1), 6-9.
4. Babbar A., Pandey S. and Singh R. (2015) Electronic Journal of Plant Breeding, 6(3), 738-748.
5. Dev A., Verma P. and Kumhar B.L. (2017) Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci., 6(4), 20-25.
6. Dhuria Neha and Anita Babbar (2017) Journal of Food Legume, 30 (1), 25-29.
7. Jivani J.V., Mehta D.R., Pithia M.S., Madariya R.B. and Mandavia C.K. (2013) Electronic Journal of Plant Breeding, 4(4), 1284-1291.
8. Johnson P.L., Pandey R.L., Gour P.M., Sharma R.N., Nair S.K., Kashyap O.P. (2009) Current Advances in Agricultural Sciences, 1(2), 80-82.
9. Johnson P.L., Sharma R.N. and Nanda H.C. (2018) Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci., 6, 1172-1182.
10. Kishor L., Swarup I., Nehra A., Kirar G. and Jeeterwal1 R.C. (2018) Int. J. Pure App. Biosci., 6 (4), 141-144.
11. Malik S.R.., Bakhsh A., Asif M.A., Iqbal U. and Iqbal S.M.(2014) Int. J. Agric. Biol., 1560–8530.
12. Mishra S. and Babbar A. (2014) Electron. J. Pl. Breed., 5(2), 260-267.
13. Mohan S. and Thiyagarajan K. (2019) Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci, 8(5), 1801-1808.
14. Saki1 A. I., Zaman M. A., Tuhina-Khatun M., Kamal M. M. and Begum H. (2009) The Agriculturist, 7(1&2), 12-21.
15. Singh M. K., Singh A. and Rhods D.S. (2018) International Journal of Fauna and Biological Studies, 5(3), 131-135.
16. Sharanappa S.D., Kumar J., Meena H.P., Bharadwaj C., Jagadeesh H.M., Raghvendra K.P. and Singode A. (2014) Journal of Food Legumes, 27(1), 71-73.
17. Srivastava S., Lavanya G.R. and Lal G.M. (2017) Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry, 6(4), 748-750.
18. Takkuri R., Ragunath S. and Vangaru S. (2017) Journal of Pharmacology and Life Sciences, (2) 177-183.
19. Tiwari A., Babbar A. and Pal N. (2016) Int. J. of Agric. Sci., 54(8), 2884-2886.
20. Thakur S.K. and Sirohi A. (2009) Legume Res., 32 (1), 1-6.