GENE ACTION OF YIELD AND YIELD CONTRIBUTING TRAITS OF STABLE CMS BASED HYBRIDS IN PIGEONPEA [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millspaugh.]

S.K. SAROJ¹*, M.K. VISHWAKARMA², T. SINGH³, V.K. MISHRA⁴, M.N. SINGH^5
1Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, 221 005, India
²Borlaug Institute for South Asia, Jabalpur, 482001, India
³Crop Improvement Division, Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute, Jhansi, 284003, India
⁴Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, 221 005, India
⁵Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, 221 005, India
* Corresponding Author : sandeepsaroj@gmail.com

Received : 10-05-2020     Accepted : 21-05-2020     Published : 30-05-2020
Volume : 12     Issue : 10       Pages : 9873 - 9877
Int J Agr Sci 12.10 (2020):9873-9877

Keywords : Pigeonpea, Epistasis, Heritability, Genetic advance, Gene action
Academic Editor : Dr R. S. Umakanth
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Authors are thankful to Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, 221 005, India.
Author Contribution : All authors equally contributed

For enhancing biological yield in pigeonpea to gain economic benefits, basic information on genetics, inheritance of yield and its component characters are essential to determine the most efficient breeding approaches. The genetic components of ten yield related traits were studied by generation mean analysis, using six generations P1, P2, F1, F2, B1 and B2 of five crosses. Through additive-dominance model for the inheritance of characters, ‘‘Scaling’’ and ‘‘Joint scaling test’’ were found significant for most the characters. Frequencies of positive and negative alleles were distributed among parents. For most of the traits studied Dominance × Dominance (l) inter-allelic interactions were found more prominent than Additive × Additive (i) type, suggested that the performance of recurrent selection could be effective. Duplicate gene action was observed among many traits with few exhibiting complementary gene actions. Heritability and genetic advance both were indicated that a large proportion of the phenotypic variance was due to non-genetic effects. The observed dominance effects along with additive effects could be effective in selection of high yielding transgressive segregants in breeding program.

1. FAO http://www.fao.org
2. Saroj S.K., Vishwakarma M.K. and Mishra V.K. (2016) Plant Archives, 16 (2), 580-587.
3. Saxena K.B. (2008) Trop. Plant Biol.,1, 159 -178.
4. Saroj S.K., Singh M.N., Vishwakarma M.K., Singh T. and Mishra V.K. (2015) Plant Breed.,134, 696-702.
5. Gill K.S. (1980) Gill KS (ed) Breeding methodologies for pulse crops.
6. Shashikumar K.T., Pitchaimuthu M. and Rawal R.D. (2010) Euphytica, 173, 121–127.
7. Mather K. (1949) Dover publications Inc, New York.
8. Hayman B.I. and Mather K. (1955) Biometrics,11, 69-82.
9. Cavalli L.L. (1952) In: Reeve ECR and Waddington CH (eds) HMSO, London, 135-144.
10. Hayman B.I. (1958) Heredity, 12,371-390.
11. Mather K. and Jinks J.L. (1982) The study of continuous variation, 3rd edn. Chapman and Hall, London.
12. Warner J.N. (1952) Agron. J., 44, 423-430.
13. Sreelakshmi Ch., Shivani D. And Reddy R. (2013) Elect.J. of Biosci., 1, 38 - 43.
14. Saroj S.K., Singh M.N. and Singh T. (2014) Int. J. of Res. Studies in Biosciences, 2(10), 7-15.
15. Sameer K.C.V., Sreelakshmi C.H., Shivani D. and Suresh M. (2009) J. Res.of ANGRAU, 37, 71–76.
16. Ajay B.C., Gananesh B.N., Ganapathy K.N., Gowda M.B., Prasad P.S., Veerakumar G.N., Venkatesha S.C., Fiyaz R.A. and Ramya K.T. (2012) Euphytica, 186, 705 -714.
17. Singh J. and Bajpai G.C. (2005) Indian J. of Genet. and Plant Breed., 65, 133-134.
18. Sarode S.B., Singh M.N. and Singh U.P. (2009) Int. J. on Agric. Sci., 5, 78-81.
19. Gupta A.K., Singh I.S. and Bajpai G.C. (1996) International Chickpea Pigeonpea Newsletter, 3, 73-74.
20. Kumar B. and Patra N.M. (2010) J. of Heredity,101,657-660.
21. Reynolds M., Manes Y., Izanloo A. and Langridge P. (2009) Ann. of Appl. Biology,155, 309-320.
22. Nadarajan N. and Gunasekaran L. M. (2005) Kalyani publish. New Delhi, India.
23. Basavarajaiah D., Byre Gowda M., Lohithaswa H.C. and Kulkarni R.S. (2000) Crop Res., 20, 444 - 448.
24. Singh A.P., Singh U.P., Singh R.M. and Rajni R. (2003) Crop Res., 25, 305-311.