Theoretical and Applied Genetics

, Volume 73, Issue 2, pp 228–235 | Cite as

Diallel and generation means analyses for the components of resistance to Cercospora arachidicola in peanut

  • C. C. Green
  • J. C. Wynne


The inheritance of the components of partial resistance to Cercospora arachidicola Hori in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) was examined in two five-parent diallels and in the six generations of two single crosses in greenhouse tests. The Griffing (1956) analysis indicated general combining ability (GCA) to be of most importance, yet large ratios of SCA/GCA sum of squares suggested nonadditive genetic variance as well. Reciprocal effects were found for lesion area and lesion number/10 cm2 leaf area. The importance of nonadditive genetic variance was substantiated by the lack of fit for the additive-dominance model in the Hayman's analysis (1954 a, b). Further evidence from the Hayman's analysis indicated that epistasis may be important in determining the inheritance of some of the components of resistance. Additive gene effects alone accounted for the genetic variability observed among the generation means from two single crosses for all components of resistance except latent period. There was evidence that epistasis was an important mode of gene action for the inheritance of latent period.

Key words

Early leafspot Arachis hypogaea L. Groundnut 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson WF (1985) Combining ability and heritability of resistance to early leafspot (Cercospora arachidicola Hori) and late leafspot [Cercosporidium personatum (Berk, and Curt.) Deighton]. MSc Thesis, Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, RaleighGoogle Scholar
  2. Cavalli LL (1952) An analysis of linkage in quantitative inheritance. In: Reeve ECR, Waddington CH (eds) Quanti-tative inheritance. HMSO, London, pp 35–144Google Scholar
  3. Griffing B (1956) Concept of general and specific combining ability in relation to diallel crossing systems. Aust J Biol Sci 9:463–493Google Scholar
  4. Gibbons RW (1980) The ICRISAT groundnut program. In: Proc Int Workshop on Groundnuts. ICRISAT, Patancheru, AP, India, pp 12–16Google Scholar
  5. Hamid MA, Isleib TG, Wynne JC (1981) Combining ability analysis of Cercospora leafspot resistance and agronomic traits in Arachis hypogaea L. Oleagineux 36:605–610Google Scholar
  6. Hayman BI (1954 a) The analysis of variance of diallel tables. Biometrics 10:235–244Google Scholar
  7. Hayman BI (1954 b) The theory and analyses of diallel crosses. Genetics 39:789–809Google Scholar
  8. Hayman BI (1961) Notes on diallel-cross theory. In: Hanson WE, Robinson HF (eds) Statistical genetics and plant breeding. Pub No 982, National Academy of Sciences, pp 571–578Google Scholar
  9. Hoagland DR, Arnon DI (1950) The water culture method for growing plants without soil. Calif Agric Exp Stn Circ 347Google Scholar
  10. Jackson CR, Bell DK (1969) Diseases of peanut groundnut cultivars in Malaysia. Oleagineux 31:69–72Google Scholar
  11. Kornegay JL, Beute MK, Wynne JC (1980) Inheritance of resistance to Cercospora arachidicola and Cercosporidium personatum in six virginia-type peanut lines. Peanut Sci 7:4–9Google Scholar
  12. Mather K (1949) Biometrical genetics. Methuen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Mather K, Jinks JL (1971) Biometrical genetics. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Mather K, Jinks JL (1977) An introduction to biometrical genetics. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Melouk HA, Banks DJ (1978) A method of screening peanut genotypes for resistance to Cercospora leafspot. Peanut Sci 5:112–114Google Scholar
  16. Mercer PC (1976) Effect of defoliation on yield of two groundnut cultivars in Malawi. Oleagineux 31:69–72Google Scholar
  17. Parlevliet JE (1979) Components of resistance that reduce the rate of epidemic development. Annu Rev Phytopathol 17: 203–222Google Scholar
  18. Ricker MD (1985): Components of resistance of peanut to early leafspot (Cercospora arachidicola Hori). MSc Thesis, Department of Plant Pathology, North Carolina State University RaleighGoogle Scholar
  19. Sokol MJ, Baker RJ (1977) Evaluation of the assumptions required for the genetic interpretation of diallel experiments in self-pollinated crops. Can J Plant Sci 57:1185–1191Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. C. Green
    • 1
  • J. C. Wynne
    • 1
  1. 1.Crop Science DepartmentNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations