P. CHAUHAN1*, P.K. PANDEY2, G. PANDEY3
1Seed Science and Technology, Teerthankar Mahaveer University, Moradabad, 244001, Uttar Pradesh, India
2Genetics and Plant Breeding, G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, 263153, Uttarakhand, India
3National Agricultural Higher Education Project, G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, 263153, Uttarakhand, India
* Corresponding Author : priyam09chauhan@gmail.com
Received : 01-07-2020 Accepted : 13-07-2020 Published : 15-07-2020
Volume : 12 Issue : 13 Pages : 10031 - 10034
Int J Agr Sci 12.13 (2020):10031-10034
Keywords : Combining ability, Physiological attributes, Seed Vigor, Sorghum
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Authors are thankful to G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, 263153, Uttarakhand, India. Authors are also thankful to Seed Science and Technology, Teerthankar Mahaveer University, Moradabad, 244001, Uttar Pradesh, India
Author Contribution : All authors equally contributed
Among all, seed is most vital input in successful agriculture programme. Various physiological parameters which are associated with seed vigor can provide information about actual performance of various crosses or parental combinations even in very early stages of crop improvement programme at laboratory level. In this study, a total of thirteen parents of sorghum including five male sterile and eight pollinator lines were evaluated for heterotic combinations based on general and specific combining abilities on the basis of various vigor associated seed physiological parameters. Among seed parents, M 35-1 was found the best general combiner for seed vigor (4.96) while in pollinators, MR750A2 performed best for GCA. For SCA, crosses like MR750A2 x M 35-1 showed highest significant values for seed vigor (5.99) followed by 11A2 x M 35-1 (4.83) and ICSA 469 x PC5 (4.14). The study can be very useful for the rapid selection of vigorous parents on the basis of early seed vigor parameters in sorghum.
1. Hara P. N. and Bapat D. R. (1982) J. Maharashtra Agric.Univ., 7, 230-232.
2. Goyal S. N. and Kumar S. (1991) Indian J. Genet. Plant Breed., 51, 281-285.
3. Marcos F. (1999) Londrina Abrates., 1, 1-20.
4. Prasad B. and Prasad S. (2010) Environment and Ecology, 28(1B), 610-613.
5. Younis S. A., Al-Rawi F. I. and Hagop E. G. (1990) Seed Research, 18, 148-153.
6. Prasad B. and Prasad R. (2009a) Seed Research, 37(1-2), 76-80.
7. Hampton J. G. and Coolbear P. (1990) Seed Science and Technology, 18, 215-228.
8. Prasad B. and Prasad R. (2009b) IndianJournal of Forestry, 32(4), 523-527.
9. Ahmed E.E.A., and Alama S.H.A. (2010) Agriculture and Biology Journal of North America, 2, 2151-7517.
10. Ahmed M. N., Khawla E., Mohammed, Elshiekh A. I. and Nagla N. S. (2012) Science and Technology, 2(2), 16-20.
11. Moyol R., Ndlovu E., Kudita S. and Maphosa M. (2015) Journal of Cereals and Oilseed, 6(6), 31-38.
12. Abdul-Baki and Anderson J.D. (1973) Seed biology, 2, 283-315.
13. Kempthorne D. (1957) John Wiley & Sons. New York, pp. 468-471.
14. Arunachalam V. (1974) Indian J. Genet., 34, 280-287.
15. Comstock R.E., Robinson H.F. and Harvey P.H. (1949) Agron. J., 41, 360-367.
16. Maranville J.W. and Clegg M.D. (1977) Agron J., 69, 329-330.
17. Parvathamma S., Prakash H.S. and Shetty H.S. (1991) Adv Pl Sci., 4(1), 35-42.
18. Singh A.R., Bhale N.L. and Borikar S.T. (1982) J Maharashtra Agrl Univ., 14(3), 306-309.
19. Bijagare M.M., Ghuge S.B. and Shete D.M. (1994) Ann Pl Physiol., 8(1), 59-62.
20. Rawat R., Uniyal S.P., Mishra V. and Uniyal M. (2014) J Hill Agr., 5(1), 61-64.