Loading...

Legume Research

INTERRELATIONSHIP AND PATH ANALYSIS FOR SEED YIELD AND ITS COMPONENT CHARACTERS UNDER EIGHT ENVIRONMENTS IN PEA (PISUM SATIVUM L.)

Article Id: ARCC1286 | Page : 87 - 94
Citation :- INTERRELATIONSHIP AND PATH ANALYSIS FOR SEED YIELD AND ITS COMPONENT CHARACTERS UNDER EIGHT ENVIRONMENTS IN PEA (PISUM SATIVUM L.).Legume Research.2010.(33):87 - 94
Sudhir Kumar Dhama, Neeraj Kumar Tyagi* and P.B.Singh**
Address : Basmati Export Development Foundation, SVBUA&T Campus, Modipuram Meerut – 250 110, India

Abstract

A study was conducted to determine the character associations and their mode of direct
and indirect effect on grain yield in 30 genotypes of pea to pick up the best character contribution
under irrigated and rainfed environments. The value of genotypic correlations was higher than
phenotypic correlations for all the characters in all the environments. Number of pods per plant
exhibited significant and positive association with seed yield per plant in all the environments.
Seed yield was significantly and positively associated with protein content at genotypic level in
E5. Protein content exhibited negative and significant correlation with pod length and number
of nodules in E2 and E4 and with number of seed and 100 seed weight in E6. The plant height
had the positive values of direct effects from 0.104 to 0.008 in E3 and E2, respectively. The
direct effect of number of seeds per plant on grain yield was observed to be low and positive
under E7 and E8 and negative under E1, E2, E3, E4, E5 and E6. The characters like biological
yield at phenotypic level had positive correlation with seed yield and its direct effect was positive
would be attributed by the direct effects of others yield contributing characters

Keywords

Pisum sativum Correlation Path analysis Environments

References

  1. Chaudhary, D.K. and Sharma, R.R. (2003). Indian J. Horti. 60(3): 251-256.
  2. Dewey, D.R. and Lu, K.H. (1959). Agro. J., 51:515-518.
  3. Johnson, H.W. et al. (1955). Agric. J. 47: 314-318.
  4. Kumar, B.et al. (2003). Progr. Agri. 3(1-2): 141-142.
  5. McPhee, K. (2003). Food, Agri. Environ. 1 (1): 64-69.
  6. Sharma, A.K. et al. (2003). Crop Research. Hissar. 26 (1): 135-139.
  7. Singh, D. and Mishra, V.K. (2002). Legume Res. 25(1): 44-46.
  8. Singh, J.D. and Singh, I.P. (2006). Legume Res. 29 (1): 65-67.
  9. Singh, S.K. et al. (1998). Crop Improv. 25(10): 139-140.
  10. Singh, S.P. et al. (1985).. Crop Impro. 12(10): 64-67.
  11. Sirohi, S.P.S. et al. (2006). Plant Archives. 6(2): 737-740.
  12. Togay, N. et al. (2008).African J. Biotechnol. 7(23): 4285-4287.
  13. Ulukan, H. et al. (2003). Pak. J. Biol. Sci ., 6(23): 1951-1955

Global Footprints