Loading...

Combining ability studies under salinity stress and unstressed condition in chickpea

DOI: 10.18805/ijar.v0iOF.7650    | Article Id: LR-3753 | Page : 239-245
Citation :- Combining ability studies under salinity stress and unstressed condition in chickpea .Legume Research.2018.(41):239-245

M.Y. Dudhe and J. Kumar

mangeshdudhe@gmail.com
Address :

Division of Genetics, Indian Agriculture Research Institute, New Delhi-110 012, India.

Submitted Date : 18-07-2016
Accepted Date : 24-01-2017

Abstract

The present study was carried out to generate some information on the genetic basis for salinity tolerance in chickpea. Results indicated that the additive as well as non-additive gene action was important for all the traits under unstressed as well as salinity stress condition. Parent Pusa 1103 was a good combiner for RWC, MSI, seed yield and harvest index both under unstressed and salinity stress condition. DG 72 was a good combiner for RWC and parent SAKI 9516 for days to maturity both under unstressed and salinity stress.  Two crosses Pusa 1103 x DG 72 and cross Pusa 1103 x DG 54 were best among all the crosses studied for seed yield per plant. While selecting best crosses for salinity stress tolerance besides giving more importance to salinity indices the seed yield per plant need to be considered. The present findings will help the chickpea breeder in deciding the breeding program aimed at improvement of salinity stress tolerant varieties in chickpea.

Keywords

Chickpea Gene action Genetic basis Salinity indices Salinity stress Yield.

References

  1. Arunachalam, V. (1989). Genetic basis of plant breeding. In: Plant Breeding - Theory and Practice. [V.L.Chopra (Ed)]. Oxford and IBH Publishing Co Ltd., New Delhi.
  2. Ashraf, M. and Waheed A. (1998). Components of genetic variation of salt tolerance in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Archives of Agron and Soil Sci. 42: 415–424.
  3. Ashraf, M. and Waheed A.(1993). Responses of some genetically diverse lines of chick pea (Cicer arietinum L.) to salt. Plant and Soil. 154: 257-266. 
  4. Ashraf, M. and McNeilly T. (1992). The potential for exploiting variation in salt tolerance in pearl millet [Pennisetum arnericanum (L.) Leeke]. Plant Breed. 108: 234-240.
  5. Baker, R.J. (1978). Issues in diallel analysis. Crop Sci. 18:533–536. 
  6. Baker, R.J. (1984). Quantitative genetic principles in plant breeding. p 147–176, In: Gustafson JP (ed) Gene manipulations in plant improvement I. Plenum Press, New York. 
  7. Cuartero, J., Bolarin. M. C. Asins M. J., and Moreno V., (2006). Increasing salt tolerance in the tomato. J. Exp. Bot. 57:1045-1058. 
  8. Dua, R.P. (1998). Differential response of chickpea (Cicer arietinum) genotypes to salinity. J. Agril. Sci. 119: 367 – 371. 
  9. Dudhe, M. Y. and Kumar J. (2016). Screening of chickpea genotypes against salinity stress Bioinfolet. 13 (2), 298-302.
  10. Dudhe, M. Y. (2008). “Genetic studies on salt tolerance in chickpea”. Ph.D. thesis, Indian Agriculture Research Institute, New Delhi (India).
  11. Flowers, T. J., Gaur M. Pooran, Laxmipathi Gowda, C. L., Krishnamurthy L., Samineni Srinivasan, Kadambot Siddique H. M., Turner Neil C., Vadez Vincent, Varshney Rajeev K., and D. Timothy. Colmer. (2009). Salt sensitivity in chickpea. Plant, Cell and Environ. :1-20.
  12. Foolad, M.R. (1997). Genetic basis of physiological traits related tosalt tolerance in tomato. (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill). Plant Breed. 116: 53-58.
  13. Foolad, M.R. (2004). Recent advances in genetics of salt tolerance in tomato. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 76: 101–119. Griffing, B. (1956). Concept of general and specific combining ability in relation to diallel crossing systems. Australian J. Biol. Sci. 9: 463-493.
  14. Jeena, A.S., and Arora P. P. (2001). Combining ability in chickpea (Cicer arietimum L.). Legume Research. 24 : 16-19.
  15. Jinks, J.L., and Hayman B.I. (1953). The analysis of diallel crosses. Maize Genet. Coop. Newslett. 27: 48–54
  16. Kumar, S., H.A.van Rheenen, and O. Singh. (1999). Genetic analysis of different components of crop duration in chickpea. J. Genet. Breed. 53: 189-200.
  17. Maas, E.V. and G.J. Hoffman (1977). Crop salt tolerance- current assessment. J. Irrig. Drain. Div. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng. 103: 115–134.
  18. Katiyar, M. (2003). Genetic analysis of yield and its component traits in kabuli chickpea. Indian J. Pulses Res. 16: 92-94.
  19. Meena, H.S.,. Kumar J and Yadav. (2006). Diallel analysis for components of genetic variation on traits related to drought S.S. tolerance in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)., Indian J. Genet., 66: 173-175
  20. Panse, V.G. and P.V. Sukhatme. (1954). Statistical methods for agricultural workers., Indian Council of Agriculture Research., New Delhi.
  21. Patil, J.V., Kulkarni S.S. and. Gawande V.L (2004). Genetics of quantitative characters in chickpea. (Cicer arietinum, L.). National J. of Plant Impro. 6(2) : 96-99.
  22. Premchandra, G.S., Sangeoka H. and Ogatta. S. (1990). Cell membrane stability, as indicator of drought tolerance, as affected by applied nitrogen in soybean. J. Agric. Sci., 115: 63-66.
  23. Rojas, B.A., and Sprague G.F.(1952). A comparison of variance components in corn yield trials: III. General and specific combining ability andtheir interaction with locations and years. Agron. J. 44: 462–6.
  24. Sairam, R.K. (1994). Effect of moisture stress on physiological activities of two contrasting wheat genotypes. Indian J. xpt. Bio., 32: 584-593.
  25. Singh, B., Singh, B.K., Kumar, J., Yadav, S.S., and Usha. K. (2005). Effects of salt stress on growth, nodulation, and nitrogen and carbon fixation of ten genetically diverse lines of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Aus. J. Agril. Res. 56 : 491-495. 
  26. Singh, R.K., and Chaudhary. B. D.(1977). Biometrical methods in quantitative genetic analysis. Kalyani Publ. Ludhiana, India.
  27. Soussi, M. A., . Ocan A. and Lluch. C. (1998). Effects of salt stress on growth, photosynthesis and nitrogen fixation in chick-pea (Cicer arietinum L.). J. Exp. Bot. 49:1329–1337.
  28. Tandon, H.L.S. (1995). Estimation of sodium and potassium. Methods of analysis of soils, plants, water and fertilizers., FDCO, New Delhi.
  29. Weatherley, P.E. (1950). Studies in water relations of cotton plants and the field measurement of water deficit in leaves., New Phytol., 49: 81-87.
  30. Saeed A., Shahid, M. Q., Anjum S. A., Khan, A. A., Shakeel A., Saleem M. F. (2011). Genetic analysis of NaCl tolerance in tomato. Genet. Mol. Res. 10, 1754–1776. 

Global Footprints