Theoretical and Applied Genetics

, Volume 83, Issue 8, pp 956–962 | Cite as

Genetic analysis of agronomic characters in chickpea

I. Estimates of genetic variances from diallel mating designs
  • O. Singh
  • C. L. L. Gowda
  • S. C. Sethi
  • T. Dasgupta
  • J. B. Smithson


Twenty-eight diallel trials over 8 years and two locations were analysed to estimate genetic variances for agronomic characters of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). The data were analysed according to Method 4 and Model I of Griffing (1956). Days to flowering, plant height, and seed size were found to be predominantly under additive inheritance and were highly predictable. Both additive and non-additive genetic components were important for seed yield, number of branches, pods per plant, and seeds per pod. Although both general combining ability (gca) and specific combining ability (sca) varied significantly with generation, components of gca mean squares were invariably much larger than gca x generation interaction components, indicating that either the F1 or the F2 generation can be used to estimate the gca components effectively. Combined diallel analysis of F2s over locations revealed the importance of combining ability x location interactions and emphasized the need for testing over more than one location for the precise estimation of combining ability. The implications of these findings and those reported earlier in the literature on the breeding strategies/methods for the genetic improvement of agronomic characters in chickpea are discussed.

Key words

Chickpea Diallel analysis Yield and yield components Gene effects Genotype x environment interaction 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aestaviet K (1964) Heterosis and selection in barley. Genetics 49:159–164Google Scholar
  2. Asawa BM, Tiwari AS (1976) Analysis of genetic architecture in segregating populations of gram (Cicer arietinum L.). Z Pflanzenzucht 77:251–256Google Scholar
  3. Baker RJ (1978) Issues in diallel analysis. Crop Sci 18:533–536Google Scholar
  4. Deshmukh RB, Bhapkar DG (1982) Heterosis and inbreeding depression in chickpea. Indian J Genet 42:208–212Google Scholar
  5. Dhaliwal HS, Gill AS (1973) Studies of heterosis, combining ability and inheritance of yield components in a diallel cross of Bengal gram. Theor Appl Genet 43:381–386Google Scholar
  6. Gowda CLL, Bahl PN (1978) Combining ability in chickpea. Indian J Genet 38:245–251Google Scholar
  7. Griffing B (1956) Concept of general and specific combining ability in relation to diallel crossing system. Aust J Biol Sci 9:463–493Google Scholar
  8. Gupta KR, Dahiya BS, Singh KP (1986) Combining ability studies over environments in pea. Crop Improv 13:134–137Google Scholar
  9. Gupta VP, Ramanujam S (1974) Genetic architecture of yield and its components in Bengal gram. Indian J Genet 34A:793–799Google Scholar
  10. Kumar H, Sharma GS, Singh RB (1983) Genotype x environment interaction in relation to combining ability in spring wheat. Indian J Genet 43:232–238Google Scholar
  11. Lal B (1972) Diallel analysis of grain yield and some other quantitative traits in bengal gram (Cicer arietinum L.). M.Sc. thesis, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  12. Malhotra RS, Gupta PK, Arora ND (1980) Diallel analysis over environments in mungbean. Indian J Genet 40:64–66Google Scholar
  13. Malhotra RS, Singh KB, Lal B (1983) Combining ability for yield and its components in chickpea. Indian J Genet 43:149–151Google Scholar
  14. Sikka G (1978) Heterosis and combining ability studies in Cicer arietinum L. M.Sc. thesis, Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  15. Singh D (1973) Diallel analysis for combining ability over several environments — II. Indian J Genet 33:469–481Google Scholar
  16. Singh KB (1974) Exploitation of heterosis in pulse crops. Indian J Genet 34A:731–808Google Scholar
  17. Singh KB, Malhotra RS, Respana BL (1982) Inheritance studies for yield and its components in chickpea. Genet Agrar 36:231–245Google Scholar
  18. Singh M (1980) Genetic and immunochemical analysis of heterosis in green gram [Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek]. Ph.D. thesis, Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  19. Singh O, Paroda RS (1984) A comparison of different diallel analysis. Theor Appl Genet 67:541–545PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Singh O, Paroda RS (1986) Association analysis of grain yield and its components in chickpea following hybridization and a combination of hybridization and mutagenesis. Indian J Agric Sci 56:139–141Google Scholar
  21. Singh O, Paroda RS (1989) A comparative analysis of combining ability and heterosis in irradiated and non-irradiated diallel populations of chickpea. Indian J Pulses Res 2:1–9Google Scholar
  22. Singh R, Bhullar GS, Gill KS (1983) Combining ability over environments in durum wheat. Indian J Genet 43:152–155Google Scholar
  23. Singh SP, Mehra RB (1980) Genetic analysis of yield and yield components in Bengal gram. Indian J Genet 40:482–489Google Scholar
  24. Smith HH (1952) Fixing transgressive vigor in Nicotiana rustica. In: Gower JW (ed) Heterosis. The Iowa State College Press, Ames, pp 161–174Google Scholar
  25. Stuber CW (1970) Estimation of genetic variances using inbred relatives. Crop Sci 10:129–135Google Scholar
  26. Tewari SK, Pandey MP (1987) Heterosis and inbreeding depression in chickpea. Indian J Genet 47:261–264Google Scholar
  27. Williams W (1959) The isolation of ‘pure lines’ from F1 hybrids of tomato, and the problem of heterosis in inbreeding crop species. J Agric Sci 53:347–353Google Scholar
  28. Yadavendra JP, Kumar S (1987) Combining ability in chickpea. Indian J Genet 47:67–70Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • O. Singh
    • 1
  • C. L. L. Gowda
    • 1
  • S. C. Sethi
    • 1
  • T. Dasgupta
    • 1
  • J. B. Smithson
    • 1
  1. 1.Legumes ProgramInternational Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)Andhra PradehsIndia

Personalised recommendations