HETEROSIS STUDIES FOR YIELD AND QUANTITATIVE TRAITS IN CUCUMBER (CUCUMIS SATIVUS L.)

B.S. DOGRA¹, M.S. KANWAR²*
¹Department of Vegetable Crops, College of Horticulture & Forestry, Neri, 177001, Dr Y S P University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, 173230, HP, India
²ICAR-Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Nyoma, 194 404, Leh, Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences & Technology, Shalimar, 190025, Jammu and Kashmir, India
* Corresponding Author : mskanwar2004@rediffmail.com

Received : 08-09-2019     Accepted : 26-09-2019     Published : 30-09-2019
Volume : 11     Issue : 9       Pages : 640 - 643
Genetics 11.9 (2019):640-643

Keywords : Heterosis, Heterobeltiosis, Cucumber, Yield
Academic Editor : Dr Rishee Kalaria
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Authors are thankful to Department of Vegetable Crops, College of Horticulture & Forestry, Neri, 177001, Dr Y S P University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, 173230, HP, India
Author Contribution : All authors equally contributed

Introduction of hybrids and their success in cucumber has made it imperative for the breeders to find out more appropriate combinations to develop superior hybrids as these have several well-known advantages over the open pollinated varieties. Crosses among eight parents (including two gynoecious lines) were attempted in half diallel fashion to find out more appropriate combinations for developing superior hybrids in cucumber. Twenty-eight F1s, eight parents and one check were grown in Randomized Block Design with three replications. Sufficient genetic diversity among parents and F1s for all the traits infers the scope of improvement through selection in the parental material. G2 was earliest in maturity. Heterobeltiosis and standard heterosis for earliness were maximum in EC 173934 x LC-40 and G2 x Gyn1, respectively. The cross combination K-90 x G2 exhibited maximum heterobeltiosis and standard heterosis for yield and number of fruits per plant.

1. Fisher R.A. (1938) 7th edition, Statistical Methods for Research Workers, Oliver and Boyd Ltd., Edinburgh.
2. Mikhov A. (1958) Plovadov, 1, 117-133.
3. Blite L. (1969) Kartofeli Ovosci., 2, 35.
4. Malicenko L.P. (1969) Trud. Volgograd Opyt, Sta. VIR No. 6, 25-32.
5. Pyzhenkov V.I. and Kosareva G.A. (1981) Genetika, 65(1), 112-118.
6. Musamade A.M. and Kale P.N. (1986) Vegetable. Science, 13(1), 60-68.
7. El-Shawaf I.I.S. (1980) Dissertation Abstract International, 13, Michigan State University East Lansing, US, 40 (7), 2923B-2924B.
8. Doligibh S.T. and Sidorova A.M. (1983) Genetika, 19 (8), 1292-1300.
9. Singh A.K., Gautam N.C. and Singh, R.D. (1999) Vegetable Science, 26 (2), 126-128.
10. Dogra B.S. (1995) M.Sc. Thesis, Dr Y S Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Solan, 59 l.
11. Ghaderi L.R. and Lower R.L. (1978) Journal of American Society of Horticultural Sciences, 103 (2), 273-278.
12. Solanki S.S., Seth, J.N. and Lal S.D. (1982) Progressive Horticulture, 14(2&3), 121-125.
13. Hormuzdi S.G. and More T.A. (1989) Indian Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding, 49(2), 161-165.
14. Om Y.H., Choi K.S., Lee C.H. and Choi C.I. (1978) Korean Journal of Breeding, 10(1), 44-50.
15. Lower R.L., Nienhuis J. and Miller C.H. (1982) Journal of American Society of Horticultural Sciences, 107 (1), 75-78.
16. Solokangas K. (1965) Maatalons ja Kaetoiminta, 19, 147-158.
17. Belik V.F. and Koziner E.P. (1968) Physiology of Heterosis in Cucumber, Koles, Leningrad, 178-187.
18. Petkova T. (1971) Gradinasrtvo, 13(1), 29-31.
19. Bairagi S.K., Singh D.K. and Ram H.H. (2002) Progressive Horticulture, 33 (2), 178-183.