Advertisement

Frequency of Heterotic Hybrids in Relation to Parental Genetic Divergence and General Combining Ability in Dolichos Bean

  • C. M. Keerthi
  • S. Ramesh
  • M. Byregowda
  • A. Mohan Rao
Research Article
  • 56 Downloads

Abstract

Though F1 hybrids are not the immediate cultivar option, development of heterotic F1 hybrids is relevant from view point of deriving pure lines, the only cultivar choice in dolichos bean, a predominantly self-pollinated grain legume crop species. Heterotic F1 generates a high frequency of productive derivatives in F3 and later generations as compared to non-heterotic F1. The criteria such as combining ability and genetic diversity between parents are being commonly used to develop heterotic hybrids. In this context, an investigation was carried out at University of Agricultural Sciences, Bengaluru, India, to test the predictability of frequency of heterotic hybrids based on parental gca effects and genetic diversity in dolichos bean. The 48 F1 hybrids generated by crossing 12 lines and 4 testers were evaluated along with their parents for 6 quantitative characters. The overall gca status (high and low) of each parent and overall sca and heterotic status (high and low) of each hybrid for 6 characters were determined. Based on overall gca status and genetic divergence of parents, the hybrids were grouped into different classes. The hybrids involving parents contrasting for overall gca status and/or those involving parents with intermediate genetic divergence were more frequently heterotic than those involving comparable gca status with extreme genetic divergence. Thus, there exists a limit to parental divergence for the occurrence of heterosis. It is hence, desirable to involve parents with intermediate genetic divergence and contrasting gca effects to recover higher frequencies of heterotic hybrids for economic traits in dolichos bean.

Keywords

Overall gca status Overall sca status Genetic divergence Dolichos bean 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Senior author gratefully acknowledges Kirkhouse Trust, United Kingdom for providing financial support in the form of international fellowship for conducting thesis research for partial fulfilment for the award of Ph.D. degree at University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, India.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Keerthi CM, Ramesh S, Byregowda M, Rao AM, Rajendra Prasad BS, Vaijayanthi PV (2014) Genetics of growth habit and photoperiodic response to flowering time in dolichos bean (Lablab purpureus (L.) Sweet). J Genet 93:203–206CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shivashankar G, Kulkarni RS (1989) Field bean (Dolichos lablab Linn. var. lignosus Prain). Indian Horticulture 34:24–27Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goldblatt P (1981) Cytology and phylogeny of leguminosae. In: Polphill RM, Raven PH (eds) Advances in legume systematic. Kew Royal Botanical Gardens, Richmond, pp 427–463Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arunachalam V, Bandyopadhyay A (1984) Limits to genetic divergence for occurrence of heterosis—experimental evidence from crop plants. Indian J Genet 44:548–554Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Falconer DS, Mackay TFC (1996) Introduction to quantitative genetics. Addison Wesley Longman Limited, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Arunachalam V, Owen ARG (1971) Polymorphisms with linked loci. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Durga Prasad MMK, Arunachalam V, Bandyopadhyay A (1985) Diversity pattern elucidating choice of parents for hybridization in varieties of ground nut. Arachis hypogea L. Trop Agric (Trinidad) 62(3):237–242Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cress CE (1966) Heterosis of the hybrid related to gene frequency differences between two populations. Genetics 53:269–274PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Griffing B (1956) A generalised treatment of diallel crosses in quantitative inheritance. Heredity 10:31–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Arunachalam V, Reddy BB (1981) Evaluation of heterosis through combining ability in pearl millet. II. Multiple crosses. Indian J Genet 41:73–81Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kempthorne O (1957) An introduction of genetics statistics. Iowa University Press, Iowa CityGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Arunachalam V, Bandyopadhyay A (1979) Are multiple cross-multiple pollen hybrids an answer for productive populations in Brassica campestris var. brown sarson? 1. Methods for studying ‘mucromphs’. Theor Appl Genet 54:203–207CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rao CR (1952) Advanced statistical methods in biometric research. Wiley, New York, p 390Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schrag TA, Frisch M, Dhillon BS, Melchinger AE (2009) Marker-based prediction of hybrid performance in maize single crosses involving doubled haploids. Maydica 54:353–362Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kunkaew W, Julsrigival S, Senthong C, Kariadee D (2006) Estimation of heterosis and combining ability in azukibean (Vigna angularis) under highland growing conditions in Thailand. Chiang Mai Univ J 5(2):163–168Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Iqbal AM, Nehvi FA, Wani SA, Qadri H, Dar ZA, Lone AA (2010) Combining ability studies over environments in Rajmash (Phaseolus Vulgaris L.) in Jammu and Kashmir, India. J Plant Breed 2(11):333–338Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gowda M, Longin CFH, Reif JC (2012) Relevance of specific versus general combining ability in winter wheat. Crop Sci 52:2494–2500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Espósito MA, Gatti I, Cravero VP, Anido FSL, Cointry EL (2013) Combining abilities and heterotic groups in Pisum sativum L. Aust J Crop Sci 7(11):1634–1641Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Akinwalea RO, Badu-Aprakub B, Fakoredea MAB, Vroh-Bi I (2014) Heterotic grouping of tropical early-maturing maize inbred lines based on combining ability in Striga-infested and Striga-free environments and the use of SSR markers for genotyping. Field Crops Res 156:48–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chahal GS, Gosal SS (2002) Principles and procedures of plant breeding. Narosa Publishing House, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Singh SP, Singh HN, Srivastava JP (1986) Genetic studoes of flowers and pods/raceme in hyacinth bean (Dolichos lablab L). Farm Sci J 1:85–88Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Singh SP, Singh HN, Srivastava JP (1980) Combining ability in lablab bean (Lablab purpureus L. Sweet). Ind Agric 30:147–152Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Barelli MAA, Vidigal MCG, Amaral ATJ, Filho PSV, Scapim CA (2000) Diallel analysis of the combining ability of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cultivars. Braz Arch Biol Technol 43:409–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sofi P, Rather AG, Wani SA (2006) Combining ability and gene action studies over environments in field pea (Pisum sativum L.). Pak J Biol Sci 9(14):2689–2692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Saleem SA (2009) Heterosis and combining ability in a diallel cross of eight faba bean (Vicia faba L.) genotypes. Asian J Crop Sci 1(2):66–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bos I (1977) More arguments against intermating F2 plants of a self-pollinated crop. Euphytica 26:33–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hanson WD (1959) The breakup of initial linkage blocks under selected mating systems. Genetics 44(5):857–868PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stam P (1977) Selection response under random mating and under selfing in the progeny of a cross of homozygous parents. Euphytica 262:169–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Roy D (2000) Plant breeding-analysis and exploitation of genetic variation. Narosa Publishing House, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bisen MS, Singh SP, Rao SK (1985) Effectiveness of selection methods in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) under different environments. Theor Appl Genet 70:661–666CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Salimath PM, Bahl PN (1985) Early generation selection in chickpea III. Predicted and realized gains. Exp Genet 1:59–62Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Toker C, Cagirgan MI (2003) Selection criteria in chickpea (Cicer arietinum). Acta Agric Scand Sect B Soil Plant Sci 53:42–45Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Toker C, Cagirgan MI (2004) The use of phenotypic correlations and factor analysis in determining characters for grain yield selection in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Hereditas 140:226–228CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Arunachalam V (1976) Evaluation of diallel crosses by graphical and combining ability methods. Indian J Genet Plant Breed 36:358–366Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bandyopadhyay A, Arunachalam V (1980) Are multiple cross-multiple pollen hybrids an answer for productive populations in Brassica campestris var. brown sarson? 2. Evaluation of ‘mucromphs’. Theor Appl Genet 58:5–10CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lalitha Reddy SS, Sheriff RA, Ramesh S, Mohan Rao A (2000) Exploring possible limits to parental divergence for the occurrence of heterosis in sesame (Sesamum indicum L.). Crop Res 19:305–309Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ramesh S, Sheriff RA, Rao AM, Reddy SSL (2000) Prediction of the frequency of heterotic hybrids based on GCA effects of parents over a number of characters in sesame (Sesamum indicum L.). Crop Res 19(2):310–314Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Simmonds NW (1979) Principle of crop improvement. Longman Group Limited, Harlow, pp 115–116Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sreelatha E, Gowda CLL, Gour TB, Sharma HC, Ramesh S, Upadhyaya HD (2008) Genetic analysis of pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera) resistance and grain yield in desi and kabuli chickpeas (Cicer arietinum) under unprotected conditions. Indian J Genet Plant Breed 68(4):406–413Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Reddy BB, Arunachalam V (1981) Evaluation of heterosis through combining ability in pearl millet. I. Single crosses. Indian J Genet 41:59–65Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rao NGP (1972) Sorghum breeding in India. In: Rao NGP, Hquse LR (eds) Recent developments in sorghum in seventies. Oxford and IBH, New Delhi, pp 101–142Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rao NGP, Rana BS (1978) Characterization of tropical and temperate sorghums and their utilization. In: Proceedings of national symposium on plant and animal genetic resources New Delhi, pp 28–30Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Srivastava PSL, Arunachalam V (1977) Heterosis as a function of genetic divergence in triticale. Z Pflanzenziichtg 79:269–275Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Arunachalam V, Bandyopadhyay A, Nigam SN, Gibbons RW (1984) Heterosis in relation to genetic divergence and specific combining ability in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Euphytica 33:33–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rao M, Reddy GL, Kulkarni RS, Ramesh S, Reddy SSL (2004) Prediction of heterosis based on genetic divergence of parents through regression analysis in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Helia 27:51–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Krishnamurthy SL, Mohan Rao A, Madhavi Reddy K, Ramesh S, Hittalmani Shailaja, Gopinath Rao M (2013) Limits of parental divergence for the occurrence of heterosis through morphological and AFLP marker in chilli (Capsicum annuum L.). Curr Sci 104:6–25Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The National Academy of Sciences, India 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. M. Keerthi
    • 1
  • S. Ramesh
    • 1
  • M. Byregowda
    • 2
  • A. Mohan Rao
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Genetics and Plant BreedingUniversity of Agricultural Sciences (UAS)BengaluruIndia
  2. 2.All India Coordinated Research Project on Pigeonpea, ZARSUniversity of Agricultural Sciences (UAS)BengaluruIndia

Personalised recommendations