Theoretical and Applied Genetics

, Volume 67, Issue 6, pp 541–545 | Cite as

A comparison of different diallel analyses

  • O. Singh
  • R. S. Paroda


Five different methods of diallel analysis have been compared using data from a half-diallel cross of a fixed set of nine homozygous varieties and one set of their single cross progenies in chickpea. The interrelationships among various parameters obtained from these analyses are reviewed and the advantages and disadvantages of each method discussed. The analysis proposed by Gardner and Eberhart (1966) appears to be superior as in addition to gca and sca effects and variances it provides information on the additive effects of varieties and their average and individual contribution to heterosis in crosses.

Key words

Half diallel Griffing models Jones model Gardner and Eberhart model Walters and Morton model 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baker RJ (1978) Issues in diallel analysis. Crop Sci 18:533–536Google Scholar
  2. Chung JH, Stevenson E (1973) Diallel analysis of the genetic variation in some quantitative traits in dry beans. N Z J Agric Res 16:223–231Google Scholar
  3. Gardner CO, Eberhart SA (1966) Analysis and interpretation of the variety cross diallel and related populations. Biometrics 22:439–452Google Scholar
  4. Griffing B (1956) Concept of general and specific combining ability in relation to diallel crossing systems. Aust J Biol Sci 9:463–493Google Scholar
  5. Gupta VP, Ramanujam S (1974) Cumulative gene effects and genetic parameters of heterosis in F1 and F2 generations of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Genetica Yugoslavia 6:263–275Google Scholar
  6. Hayes JD, Paroda RS (1974) Parental generation in relation to combining ability analysis in spring barley. Theor Appl Genet 44:373–377Google Scholar
  7. Hayman BI (1954) The analysis of variance of diallel tables. Biometrics 10:235–244Google Scholar
  8. Hayman BI, Mather K (1955) The description of genetic interactions in continuous variation. Biometrics 11:69–82Google Scholar
  9. Jinks JL (1955) A survey of the genetical basis of heterosis in a variety of diallel crosses. Heredity 9:223–238Google Scholar
  10. Jugenheimer RW (1976) Corn improvement, seed production and uses. Wiley, New York, p 156Google Scholar
  11. Matzinger DF (1963) Experimental estimates of genetic parameters and their application in self fertilizing plants. In: Hanson WD, Robinson HF (eds) Statistical genetics and plant breeding. NAS-NRC, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  12. Morley-Jones R (1965) Analysis of variance on the half diallel table. Heredity 20:117–121Google Scholar
  13. Singh M (1980) Genetic and immunochemical analysis of heterosis in green gram [Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek]. Unpublished PhD Thesis (submitted to Haryana Agricultural University, Hissar, India)Google Scholar
  14. Sokol MJ, Baker RJ (1977) Evaluation of the assumptions required for the genetic interpretation of the diallel experiments in self pollinated crops. Can J Plant Sci 57:1185–1191Google Scholar
  15. Walters DE, Morton JR (1978) On the analysis of variance of a half diallel table. Biometrics 34:91–94Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • O. Singh
    • 1
  • R. S. Paroda
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Plant BreedingHaryana Agricultural UniversityHissar-125 004, HaryanaIndia

Personalised recommendations