STUDIES ON GENETIC VARIABILITY & INTERRELATIONSHIP AMONG MORPHOLOGICAL TRAITS OF RICE (Oryza sativa L.) GENOTYPES UNDER DROUGHT STRESS CONDITION AT REPRODUCTIVE STAGE

S. PANJA¹*, H.S. GARG², C. BHATTACHARYA^3
1Department of Agricultural Extension and Communication, Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture Technology and Sciences, Allahabad, 211007, India
²Department of Agricultural Extension and Communication, Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture Technology and Sciences, Allahabad, 211007, India
³Department of Agricultural Extension and Communication, Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture Technology and Sciences, Allahabad, 211007, India
* Corresponding Author : sudeshnapanja.panja@gmail.com

Received : 24-08-2022     Accepted : 28-06-2023     Published : 30-06-2023
Volume : 15     Issue : 6       Pages : 12435 - 12439
Int J Agr Sci 15.6 (2023):12435-12439

Keywords : Association, Drought, Genetic-variability, Rice, Tolerance
Academic Editor : Ronak Mangroliya
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Authors are thankful to Department of Genetics & Plant Breeding, Faculty of Agriculture, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, Mohanpur, Nadia, 741252, West Bengal, India
Author Contribution : All authors equally contributed

The present investigation was carried out at Jaguli Instructional Farm, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, Moganpur, Nadia, West Bengal in Kharif-2015 to asses genetic variability and association among 12 different morphological traits of rice under two hydrological regimes irrigated and water stress condition at reproductive stage. The study revealed that the maximum phenotypic and genotypic co-efficient of variation was exhibited by the characters root to shoot ratio, number of effective tillers per plant and flag leaf area under both the environments. Highest heritability was recorded for plant height followed by days to maturity, root length and test weight across the environments. High heritability coupled with high genetic advance was evaluated for the character root to shoot ratio and high heritability with moderate genetic advance was observed for the characters number of effective tillers, flag leaf area and days to maturity in both the environments suggesting that direct selection of these characters maybe useful for future improvement of these genotypes for drought tolerance and grain yield. High heritability with low genetic advance was showed by the character fertility percentage under both hydrological regimes indicating that direct selection of this trait would not be useful but further improvement of this trait could be done by population improvement method. The character association study revealed that the characters root to shoot ratio, number of effective tillers per plant, root length and panicle length had positive significant correlation in water stress condition at both genotypic and phenotypic level whereas root length and root to shoot ratio had positive correlation with yield per plant in irrigated condition. Plant height and flag leaf area had positive correlation with yield per plant in both the environments. Results from the study highlighted that the characters root to shoot ratio, root length, flag leaf area and number of effective tillers per plant were correlated with yield and had either high direct or indirect effect and could be considered for selection of desirable lines. So, further improvement of these traits through selection may provide a high response to selection

1. Huke R. E. and Huke E. H. (1997) Rice Area by Type of Culture: South, Southeast, and East Asia. Los Baños: IRRI.
2. Kumar A. and Singh D. P. (1998) Annals Botany, 81, 413-420.
3. Abbade E. B. (2021) Waste Management, 134, 170-176.
4. Maclean J. L., Dawe D. C., Hardy B. and Hettel G. P. (2002) Rice almanac (third Edition), Philippines, IRRI, WARDS, CIAT and FAO.
5. Singh S. and Singh T. N. (2000) Indian Journal of Plant Physiology, 5, 136-141.
6. Pandey S. and Bhandari H. (2008) World Scientific publishing, Singapore, p.3-17.
7. Yu Y., Hu X., Zhu Y. and Mao D. (2020) Molecular Breeding, 40, 1-12.
8. Kumar A., Verulkar S. B., Mandal N. P., Variar M., Shukla V. D., Dwivedi J. L., Singh B. N., Singh O. N., Swain P., Mall K., Robin S., Chandrababu R., Jain A., Haefele S.M., Piepho H.P., Raman A. (2012) Field Crop Research, 133, 37-47.
9. Wu X. H., Wang W., Yin C. M., Hou H. J., Xie K. J. and Xie X. L. (2017) PLoS One, 12:e0189280.
10. Burton G.W. (1952) Proceeding. 6th International Grassland. Congress, 1, 277-283.
11. Johnson H. W., Robinson H. F. and Comstock R. E. (1955) Agronomy Journal, 47, 177-483.
12. Lush J. L. (1940) Proceeding American Society of Animal Production, 33, 293-301.
13. Hanson C. H., Robinson H. F. and Comstock R. E. (1956) Agronomy Journal, 48, 268-272.
14. Dewey D. R. and Lu K. H. (1959) Agronomy Journal, 51, 515-518.
15. Das S., Subudhi H. N. and Reddy J. N. (2001) Oryza, 44(4), 343-346.
16. Pandey V. R., Singh P. K., Verma O. P. and Pandey P. (2012) International Journal of Agriculture Research, 7(4), 169-184.
17. Girish T. N., Gireesha T. M., Vaishali M. G., Hanamareddy B. G. and Hittalmani S. (2006) Euphytica, 152, 149-161.
18. Ganapathy S., Ganesh S. K., Shanmugasundaram P. and Chandrababu R. (2010) Electronic Journal of Plant Breeding, 1(4), 1016-1020.
19. Nithya N., Beena R., Roy S., Abida P. S., Jayalekshmi V. G., Viji M. M. and Manju R. V. (2020) Chemical Science Review Letter, 9(33), 48-54.
20. Sarma M. K. and Richaria A. K. (1995) Journal of Agriculture and Social Sciences, 8(2), 154-157.
21. Chouhan S. K., Singh A. K., Aparajita S., Ram M., Singh P. K. and Singh N. K. (2014) The Bioscan, 9(2), 853-858.
22. Lingaiah N. (2015) Asian Journal of Environmental Science, 10(1), 110-112.
23. Islam M. A., Raffi S. A, Hossain M. A. and Hasan A. K. (2015) Agriculture, 26, 26-31.
24. Sabesan T., Suresh R. and Saravanan K. (2009) Electrotonic Journal of Plant Breeding, 1, 56-59.
25. Samadia D. K. (2005) Indian Journal of Plant Genetic Research, 18, 236-240.
26. Kumar A., Kumar J., Bharti B., Verma P. N., Jaiswal J. P., Singh G. P. and Vishwakarma S. R. (2017) Journal of Applied Natural Science, 9, 192-195.
27. Bapo J. R. K. and Soundarapandian G. (1992) Madras Agricultural Journal, 11, 619-623.
28. Choudhury P. K. D. and Das P. K. (1998) Annals of Agricultural Research, 2, 120-132.
29. Padmavathi N., Mahadevappa M. and Reddy O. U. K. (1996) Crop Research Hisar, 12, 353-357.
30. Rao S. S. and Shrivastav M. N. (1999) Oryza, 36(1), 13-15.
31. Lanceras J. C., Pantuwan G., Jongdee B., and Toojinda T. (2004) Plant Physiology, 135, 384-399
32. Bernier J., Kumar A., Venuprasad R., Spaner D. and Atlin G. N. (2007) Crop Science, 47, 507-516.
33. Vikram P., Swamy B. M., Dixit S., Ahmed H. U., Teresa Sta and Cruz M. (2011) BMC Genetics, 12,89
34. Yosidha S. (1981) Fundamentals of Rice Crop Science, Los Banos, Philippines: IRRI, 269.
35. Mehetre S. S., Mahajan C. R., Patil P. A., Land S. K. and Dhumal P. M. (1994) IRRI Note, 19(1), 8-10.
36. Seyoum M., Alamerew S. and Bantte K. (2012) Journal of Plant Science, 1-10.
37. Pandey V. R., Singh P. K., Verma O. P. and Pandey P. (2012) International Journal of Agricultural Research, 7(4), 169-184.