Loading...

INHERITANCE OF RESISTANCE TO FUSARIUM WILT IN SOME PIGEONPEA CROSSES UNDER FIELD CONDITIONS

Article Id: ARCC2050 | Page : 186-190
Citation :- INHERITANCE OF RESISTANCE TO FUSARIUM WILT IN SOME PIGEONPEA CROSSES UNDER FIELD CONDITIONS.Legume Research.2009.(32):186-190
C.V. Sameer Kumar, P. Kishore Varma, M. Suresh, and Ch. Sreelakshmi
Address : Agricultural Research Station, Tandur-501 141, India.

Abstract

Four susceptible pigeonpea lines viz: PRG-100, PRG-88, LRG-30 and ICPL-85063 and two
resistant lines ICP-8863 and ICPL-87119 were selected for crossing to study the inheritance
pattern of resistance to Fusarium wilt. Out of the 8 cross combinations possible five crosses viz:
PRG-100x ICP-8863, PRG-88 x ICP-8863, LRG-30 x ICP-8863, ICPL-85063 x ICP-8863 and
PRG-100 x ICPL-87119 were selected wherein sufficient population was there to interpret results
based on 2 test. The progeny (F1’s) from these crosses were also resistant like their resistant
parents. The F2 population of PRG-100x ICP-8863, LRG-30 x ICP-8863 and ICPL-85063 x ICP-
8863 segregated in a phenotypic ratio of 13R: 3S in all the crosses. When back crossed to
resistant parent ICP-8863, the population segregated in 3R:1S phenotypic ratio; and when back
crossed to the susceptible parent it segregated into 1R:1S phenotypic ratio. For the crosses
PRG-88x ICP-8863 and PRG-100 x ICPL-87119, the F2 population segregated in 9R:7S ratio.
The back crosses population (B1) to the resistant parent of both crosses segregated in phenotypic
ratio of 3R:1S; and to the susceptible parent segregated in a ratio of 1R:1S. Inheritance studies
on Fusarium wilt resistance affirmed the dominance of resistance to susceptibility and the role
of two gene interactions viz: inhibitory (13:3) and complementary (9:7) type.

Keywords

Resistance Fusarium Wilt Pigeonpea crosses.

References

  1. Anonymous, (2007). WTO CELL News Letter, ANGRAU, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad. P.I.
  2. Butler, E.J. (1908). Agric J India. 3:182-183.
  3. Grover, A. and Pental, D. (2003). Curr Sci. 84(3):310-320.
  4. Jain, K.C. and Reddy, M.V. (1995). Indian J Genet 55(4):434-437.190 Vol. 32, No. 3, 2009
  5. Joshi, A.B. (1957). Indian J Genet 17: 305-317.
  6. Kannaiyan, J. et al., (1984). Trop Pest Mgmt. 30:62-71.
  7. Nene, Y.L. and Kannaiyan, J. (1982). Plant Disease 66: 306-307.
  8. Nene, Y.L, et al., (1996). A World List of Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) and Pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan L. Millsp) Pathogens. Fifth edition, ICRISAT, Patacheru, A.P., India.
  9. Odeny, D.A, et al., (2001). Proc. Regional Workshop Nairobi, Kenya. P.P: 43-47.
  10. Okiror, M.A. (2002). Indian J Genet 62(3):218-220.
  11. Pandey, R.N. et al., (1996). Indian J Genet 56 (3):305-308.
  12. Pawar, N.B. and Mayee, C.D. (1986).Indian Phytopathol 39 (1):70-74.
  13. Sharma, D. (1986). Pigeonpea Genetics and Improvement. (Tikka S B S, ed.), Sharada Publishing Academy, Gujarat,India, pp : 103-139.
  14. Shaw, F.J.F. (1936). Indian J Agric Sci. 6:139-187.
  15. Singh, I.P. et al., (1998). Indian J Agric Sci. 68(11):729-731.

Global Footprints