Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:16:45.873Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Newly isolated intervarietal garden pea (Pisum sativum L.) progenies (F7) under north western Himalayan conditions of India

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2019

Akhilesh Sharma ,
Bhallan Singh Sekhon Open the ORCID record for Bhallan Singh Sekhon [Opens in a new window] ,
Susheel Sharma  and
Ravi Kumar
Akhilesh Sharma*
Affiliation:
Department of Vegetable Science and Floriculture, Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur-176 062, Himachal Pradesh, India
Bhallan Singh Sekhon
Affiliation:
Department of Vegetable Science and Floriculture, Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur-176 062, Himachal Pradesh, India
Susheel Sharma
Affiliation:
School of Biotechnology, Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Jammu, Chatha, Jammu 180009, India
Ravi Kumar
Affiliation:
Department of Vegetable Science and Floriculture, Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur-176 062, Himachal Pradesh, India
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Low genetic diversity acts as a major bottleneck in garden pea breeding, and diverse parents are required to generate new genetic material. The diversity of parents utilized in hybridization programme was ascertained following simple sequence repeats (SSR) markers. Thirty-six homozygous F7 progenies were isolated from three intervarietal crosses through shuttle breeding programme over a period of 6 years (2009–2014). Two experiments were conducted for two consecutive years 2014/15 and 2015/16, for evaluating the agronomic performance of progenies along with four commercial control cultivars. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed that genotype, growing year and their interaction had significant effects on most of the traits. Line ‘DPP-SP-6’ recorded significantly higher pod yield/plant in comparison to all other genotypes in 2014/15, 2015/16 and for pooled over years. In addition, ‘DPP-SP-22’, ‘DPP-SP-7’ and ‘DPP-SP-17’ also performed statistically at par with best-performing check ‘Pb-89’ during both the years. These superior lines, in general, showed better pod filling, green pod colour, high shelling, sweetness and resistance to powdery mildew disease. These superior progenies could act as an alternative to the popular check varieties after their exhaustive evaluation over environments.

Keywords

Agronomic performanceGarden peaSSR
Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , February 2020 , pp. 76 - 87
Check for updates
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acquaah, G. (2012). Principles of Plant Genetics and Breeding, 3rd Edn. New York, London: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., p. 760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allard, R.W. (1960). Principles of Plant Breeding. New York, London: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., p. 485.Google Scholar
Amjad, M. and Anjum, M.A. (2002). Performance of nine pea cultivars under Faisalabad conditions. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences 39, 16–19.Google Scholar
Anjum, M., Qasim, S., Ahmad, S. and Hussain, S. (2015). Assessment of advantages of pea and non-legume winter vegetable intercropping systems through competition and economic indices. Experimental Agriculture 51, 327–343. DOI: 10.1017/S0014479714000337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baranger, A., Aubert, G., Arnau, G., Lainé, A.L., Deniot, G., Potier, J., Weinachter, C., Lejeune-Henaut, I., Lallemand, J. and Burstin, J. (2004). Genetic diversity within Pisum sativum using protein- and PCR-based markers. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 108, 1309–1321. DOI: 10.1007/s00122-003-1540-5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bheri, M., Fareeda, G. and Makandar, R. (2016). Assessing host specialization of Erysiphe pisi on garden pea germplasm through genotypic and phenotypic characterization. Euphytica 212, 1–14. DOI: 10.1007/s10681-015-1511-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burstin, J., Salloignon, P., Chabert-Martinello, M., Magnin-Robert, J.B., Siol, M., Jacquin, F., Chauveau, A., Pont, C., Aubert, G., Delaitre, C., Truntzer, C. and Duc, G. (2015). Genetic diversity and trait genomic prediction in a pea diversity panel. BMC Genomics 16, 105–121. DOI. 10.1186/s12864-015-1266-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doyle, J.J. and Doyle, J.L. (1990). Isolation of plant DNA from fresh tissue. Focus 12, 13–15.Google Scholar
Duncan, D.B. (1955). Multiple range and multiple F-Tests. Biometrics 11, 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eze, C.E. and Nwofia, G.E. (2016). Variability and inter-relationships between yield and associated traits in Taro (Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott). Journal of Experimental Agriculture International 14, 1–13. DOI: 10.9734/JEAI/2016/27053.Google Scholar
Fondevilla, S. and Rubiales, D. (2012). Powdery mildew control in pea. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 32, 401–409. DOI: 10.1007/s13593-011-0033-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gomez, K.A. and Gomez, A.A. (1983). Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. New York: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 357–427.Google Scholar
Guindon, M., Martin, E., Cravero, V. and Cointry, E. (2018). Transgressive segregation, heterosis and heritability for yield-related traits in a segregating population of Pisum Sativum L. Experimental Agriculture 1–11. DOI: 10.1017/S0014479718000224.Google Scholar
Hoffman, A. and Merilä, J. (1999). Heritable variation and evolution under favourable and unfavourable conditions. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14, 96–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katoch, V., Singh, P., Devi, M.B., Sharma, A., Sharma, G.D. and Sharma, J.K. (2016). Study of genetic variability, character association, path analysis and selection parameters for heterotic recombinant inbred lines of garden peas (Pisum sativum var. hortense L.) under mid-hill conditions of Himachal Pradesh, India. Legume Research 39, 163–169. DOI: 10.18805/1r.v0iOF.6775.Google Scholar
Kumari, P., Basal, N., Singh, A.K., Rai, V.P., Srivastava, C.P. and Singh, P.K. (2013). Genetic diversity studies in pea (Pisum sativum L.) using simple sequence repeat markers. Genetics and Molecular Research 12, 3540–3550. DOI: 10.4238/2013.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loridon, K., Mcphee, J., Morin, J., Dubreuil, P., Pilet-Nayel, M.L., Aubert, G., Rameau, C., Baranger, A., Coyne, C., Lejeune-Hènaut, I. and Burstin, J. (2005). Microsatellite marker polymorphism and mapping in pea (Pisum sativum L.). Theoretical and Applied Genetics 111, 1022–1031. DOI: 10.1007/s00122-005-0014-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lund, B., Ortiz, R., Skovgaard, I.M., Waugh, R. and Andersen, S.B. (2003). Analysis of potential duplicates in barley gene bank collections using re-sampling of microsatellite data. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 106, 1129–1138. DOI: 10.1007/s00122-002-1130-y CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mains, E.B. and Dietz, S.M. (1930). Physiologic form of barley, Erysiphe graminis hordei Marchal. Phytopathology 20, 229–239.Google Scholar
Makasheva, R.K. (1983). The Pea. New Delhi, India: Oxonian Press.Google Scholar
Perrier, X. and Jacquemoud-Collet, J.P. (2006). DARwin Software. http://darwin.cirad.fr/darwin.Google Scholar
Poisson, J.A.F., Bonacic, I., Royo, O. and Ibalo, Y.S. (2005). Mejoramiento genético de algodón. Ano Agrícola 2004/2005. In Sosa, M.A. and Peterlin, O. (eds), Proyecto Nacional de Algodon. Informe de Avance No 1. 2o Reunión Annual. Argentina: Ediciones Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria, pp. 9–11.Google Scholar
Ranganna, S. (1979). Manual of Analysis of Fruits and Vegetables Products. New Delhi: Tata Mc Graw Hill Book Company.Google Scholar
Rohlf, F.J. (1997). NTSYS-pc (Numerical Taxonomy and Multivariate Analysis System), Version 2.02i. Setauket, NY: Exeter.Google Scholar
Rungruangmaitree, R. and Jiraungkoorskul, W. (2017). Pea, Pisum sativum, and its anticancer activity. Pharmacognosy Reviews 11, 39–42. DOI: 10.4103/phrev.phrev_57_16.Google ScholarPubMed
Smykal, P., Hybl, M., Corander, J., Jarkovsky, J., Flavell, A. and Griga, M. (2008). Genetic diversity and population structure of pea (Pisum sativum L.) varieties derived from combined retrotransposon, microsatellite and morphological marker analysis. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 117, 413–424. DOI: 10.1007/s00122-008-0785-4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verma, M.M., Gill, K.S. and Virk, D.S. (1987). Genotype × Environment Interaction, its Measurement and Significance in Plant Breeding. Ludhiana, Punjab, India: Punjab Agricultural University, p 3–10.Google Scholar
Zhou, W.J., Zhang, G.Q., Tuvesson, S., Dayteg, C. and Gertsson, B. (2006). Genetic survey of Chinese and Swedish oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.) by simple sequence repeats (SSRs). Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 53, 443–447. DOI: 10.1007/s10722-004-7862-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Sharma et al. supplementary material

Sharma et al. supplementary material 1

Download Sharma et al. supplementary material(File)
File 97.3 KB
Supplementary material: File

Sharma et al. supplementary material

Sharma et al. supplementary material 2

Download Sharma et al. supplementary material(File)
File 253.1 KB