Theoretical and Applied Genetics

, Volume 72, Issue 4, pp 449–454 | Cite as

Fixed effect genetic analysis of a diallel cross in dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)

  • N. N. Wassimi
  • T. G. Isleib
  • G. L. Hosfield
Article

Summary

A full diallel cross among four diverse homozygous strains of dry edible beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) was evaluated for yield, protein content, and culinary quality traits in the F2 and F3 generations in two locations. Interpretation of diallel effects [Method 1 Model I] using a fixed-effect genetic model made it possible to combine data from two generations into a single analysis and quantify the relative contributions of additive and dominance genetic effects to general (GCA) and specific (SCA) combining abilities. GCA was found to arise from three potential sources: additive effects, dominance interactions at homozygous loci, and average dominance interactions in hybrids involving the parent in question. SCA was found to be a function solely of dominance. Additive effects were the primary determinant of GCA and were highly significant. Specific dominance interactions were significant for seed yield, cooked bean moisture content, and texture but not for protein content. Texture was the only trait for which the additive-dominance model failed to provide an adequate fit to the data, suggesting that texture is significantly affected by epistatic interaction. One cross (‘Brazil-2’ × ‘Sanilac’) was identified that exhibited a large heterotic effect for seed yield although the parents' additive effects were nonsignificant. Such a “nicking” effect was attributed to complementation between the two parents.

Key words

Combining ability Genetic effects Heterosis Yield Protein Culinary quality 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baker RJ (1978) Issues in diallel analysis. Crop Sci 18:533–536Google Scholar
  2. Cockerham CC (1980) Random and fixed effects in plant genetics. Theor Appl Genet 56:119–131Google Scholar
  3. Eberhart SA, Gardner CO (1966) A general model for genetic effects. Biometrics 22:864–881Google Scholar
  4. Falconer DS (1981) Introduction to quantitative genetics. Longman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Griffing B (1956) Concept of general and specific combining ability in relation to diallel crossing systems. Aust J Biol Sci 9:463–493Google Scholar
  6. Hayman BI (1954a) The analysis of variance of diallel tables. Biometrics 10:235–244Google Scholar
  7. Hayman BI (1954b) The theory and analysis of diallel crosses. Genetics 39:789–809Google Scholar
  8. Hosfield GL, Uebersax MA (1980) Variability in physicochemical properties and nutritional components of tropical and domestic dry bean germplasm. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 105:246–252Google Scholar
  9. Jinks JL, Hayman BI (1953) The analysis of diallel crosses. Maize Genet Coop Newslett 27:48–54Google Scholar
  10. Sprague GF, Tatum LA (1942) General vs. specific combining ability in single crosses of corn. J Am Soc Agron 34:923–932Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. N. Wassimi
    • 1
  • T. G. Isleib
    • 1
  • G. L. Hosfield
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Crop and Soil SciencesMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.USDA-ARS, Department of Crop and Soil SciencesMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations