Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T02:55:29.753Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic analysis of yield and yield components in field peas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

B. B. Singh ,
U. P. Singh ,
R. M. Singh  and
B. Rai
B. B. Singh
Affiliation:
Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi-221005, India
U. P. Singh
Affiliation:
Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi-221005, India
R. M. Singh
Affiliation:
Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi-221005, India
B. Rai
Affiliation:
Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi-221005, India
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The genetic parameters controlling the expression of seed yield and the yield components have been studied using both generation mean and triple test cross (TTC) analyses in two crosses of field pea. From generation mean analysis, it is obvious that in addition to significant estimates of additive and dominance components, epistatic components of mean [(i) and (I) types] were also important and duplicate type of epistasis was predominant for all the traits in both sets of crosses. In the TTC analysis, the major genetic component of variance was the additive component, though the dominance component was also found to be significant. There was evidence of epistasis for most of the characters studied. In fact, the overall epistasis (i type) was the major component of epistasis, but the parameter F was found in the non-significant range. The mean performance of the characters studied was higher in randomly-mated biparental progenies (BIPs) but there were more desirable transgressive segregants in the TTC population. Thus the genetic information obtained from both analyses seems to be complementary rather than alternative modes of inheritance in governing the expression of these useful economic traits.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 109 , Issue 1 , August 1987 , pp. 67 - 71
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

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

Cavalli, L. L. (1952). An analysis of linkage in quantitative inheritance. In Quantitative Inheritance (ed. Rieve, E. C. R. and Waddington, C. H.), pp. 135–144. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Jinks, J. L. & Perkins, J. M. (1970). A general method for the detection of additive, dominance and epistatic com- ponents of variation. III. F2 and backcross population. Heredity 25, 419–429.Google Scholar
Jinks, J. L. & Pooni, H. S. (1976). Predicting the properties of recombinant lines derived by single seed descent. Heredity 36, 253–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jinks, J. L. & Pooni, H. S. (1981). Properties of pure breeding lines produced by dihaploidy, single seed descent and pedigree breeding. Heredity 46, 391–395.Google Scholar
Mather, K. & Jinks, J. L. (1982). Biometrical Genetics. 3rd edn.London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Pooni, H. S. & Jinks, J. L. (1979). Sources and biases of the predictors of the properties of recombinant inbreds produced by single seed descent. Heredity 42, 41–48.Google Scholar
Snape, J. W. (1982). Predicting the frequencies of transgressive segregants for yield and yield components in wheat. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 62, 127–134.Google Scholar
Thomas, W. T. B. & Tapsell, C. R. (1983). Cross prediction studies on spring barley. I. Estimation of genetical and environmental control of morphological and maturity characters. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 64, 345–352.Google Scholar