Plant genetic material
The experimental materials comprising four parents CML332, CML145, CML167, CML330, two F
1 hybrids CML332 x CML145 and CML167 x CML330 and the corresponding F
2 populations, BCP1 and BCP2 populations of the two crosses were evaluated using a compact family block design (CFBD) in two replications during the
zaid (February to June, 2023) at the P.G. Research Farm, MSSSoA, Paralakhemudi, Gajapati, Odisha.
This investigation evaluated six populations (P
1, P
2, F
1, F
2, BCP
1 and BCP
2) of two elite hybrids, CML332 (P
1) x CML145 (P
2) and CML167 (P
1) x CML330 (P
2), which exhibited superior performance in terms of grain yield plant
-1. The parents, F1s, F2s and backcrosses were randomized separately in each replication. The F
2 populations were space- planted in 25 rows with a total plant population of 250. The planting geometry was maintained at 60 cm x 20 cm.
Observations were recorded on days to 50 % tasseling and days to 50% silking, plant height (cm), ear height (cm), ear length (cm), ear girth (cm), number of kernels row
-1, number of kernels cob
-1, 100-grain weight (g), grain yield plant
-1 (g), canopy temperature (oC), SPAD meter, membrane stability index (%), protein content (%), oil content (%), catalase activity (Umg
-1) and peroxidase activity (Umg
-1). Leaf firing, tassel blast, root lodging were also recorded based on scoring
(Raj et al., 2020 and
Teja et al., 2024). To evaluate predominant gene effects in maize, analysis were carried out by fitting the data into a six-parameter model.
Statistical analysis
Generation mean analysis
The generation mean analysis six parameter model was applied to estimate the genetic parameters to determine epistatic interaction. Mean data were first tested to determine non-allelic interaction through individual scaling tests A, B, C and D proposed by
Mather, (1949).
Scale A = 2BCP
1 - P
1 - F
1
Scale B = 2BCP
2 - P
2 - F
1
Scale C = 4F
2 - 2F
1 - P
1 - P
2
Scale D = 2F
2 - BCP
1 - BCP
2
Where,
P
1, P
2, F
1, F
2, BCP
1 and BCP
2 = Means from distinct generations.
The variances of the values A, B, C and D were determined using the corresponding variances of different populations, as given below:
VA = 4V (BCP
1) + V (P
1) + V (F
1)
VB = 4V (BCP
2) + V (P
2) + V (F
1)
VC = 16V (F
2) + 4V (F
1) + V(P
1) + V(P
2)
VD = 4V (F
2) + V (BCP
1) + V (BCP
2)
Where,
VA, VB, VC and VD are the variances of respective scales A, B, C and D; VP
1,VP
2, VF
1,VF
2,VBCP
1 and VBCP
2 are the Variances of P
1, P
2, F
1, F
2, BCP
1 and BCP
2 populations respectively. Standard error for A, B, C and D scales were calculated by estimating the square root of the respective variances.
If any scaling tests were found to be significant, the genetic effects were estimated by fitting the data into a six-parameter model for generation mean analysis as suggested by
Hayman, (1958) to estimate the genetic parameters
viz., mean (m), additive gene effects (d), dominance gene effects (h) and three types of non-allelic gene interactions
viz., additive x additive (i), additive x dominance (j) and dominance x dominance (l).
Following the analysis of the estimation were calculated by using the following formula:
(1) m = Mean = F
2
(2) d = Additive effect = BCP
1 - BCP
2
(3) h = Dominance effect = F
1 - 4F
2 - (1/2) P
1 - (1/2) P
2 + 2BCP
1 + 2BCP
2
(4) i = Additive x Additive effect = 2BCP
1 + 2BCP
2 - 4F
2
(5) j = Additive x Dominance effect = BCP
1 - (1/2) P
1 - BCP
2 + (1/2) P
2
(6) l = Dominance x Dominance effect = P
1 + P
2 + 2F
1 + 4F
2 - 4BCP
1 - 4BCP
2
(7)

Vl = V (P
1) + V (P
2) + 4V (F
1) + 16V (F
2)+ 16V(BCP
1) + 16V (BCP
2)
Where,
V (P
1),V (P
2),V (F
1),V (F
2),V (BCP
1) and V (BCP
2) = Variances of P
1, P
2, F
1, F
2, BCP
1 and BCP
2 populations respectively.
The estimation of (h) and (l) along with their sign were utilized to understand the nature of epistasis
Mather and Jinks, (1971) viz; if (h) and (l) were of same sign, the gene action was referred to as complementary type and where (h) and (l) had opposite sign the same was referred to as duplicate type.
The degree of dominance, expressed as the square root of the ratio of dominance variance (H) to additive variance (D), was determined according to
Robinson et al. (1949).