Variation analysis of phenological traits in the potatoes of Iran

Journal of Research in Ecology

Journal of Research in Ecology

ISSN No: Print: 2319 –1546; Online: 2319– 1554

An International Scientific Research Journal

Original Research

Variation analysis of phenological traits in the potatoes of Iran Authors: Bahram Dehdar1, Jaber Panahandeh2 and Alireza Motallebi Azar2 Institution: 1. Ardebil Agricultural and Natural Resources Center, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Ardebil, Iran.

2. Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tabriz, Islamic Republic of Iran.

ABSTRACT: The potato production requires earliness and late maturity cultivars, depending on the type of culture and environment. Hence this research was made to find out the genotypic and phenotypic variances, heritabilities and genetic advance for phenological traits. In the following, General Combining Ability (GCA) of parents and Specific Combining Ability (SCA) from each crosses was calculated. Moderate and low phenotypic coefficient of variation was observed for all of the traits except the flowering period. The heritability estimates were found higher for all the characters studied and varied from 77% to 58% indicating that the characters are less influenced by environmental factors. The AS692, AS72,HS and Stbr2 cultivars may be good combiners for earliness and in return, Agria, UT43 and UT42 may be good combiners for late maturity breeding programs. Agria×UT42, AS72×Caeser, Daifela×Stbr2, Luca×UT43, Satina×AS12, Satina×AS14, Satina×AS692 and Satina×Stbr2 were the best crosses because of the most negative SCA effects of the studied traits.

Keywords: GCA, potato, physiological traits, SCA.

Corresponding author: Bahram Dehdar

Email ID:

Article Citation: Bahram Dehdar, Jaber Panahandeh and Alireza Motallebi Azar Variation analysis of phenological traits in the potatoes of Iran Journal of Research in Ecology (2017) 5(2): 1156-1165 Dates: Received: 26 May 2017

Web Address: http://ecologyresearch.info/ documents/EC0378.pdf

Journal of Research in Ecology An International Scientific Research Journal

Accepted: 15 July 2017

Published: 01 Oct 2017

This article is governed by the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0), which gives permission for unrestricted use, non-commercial, distribution and reproduction in all medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

1156-1165| JRE | 2017 | Vol 5 | No 2

www.ecologyresearch.info

Dehdar et al., 2017 INTRODUCTION

ity to different environments. Attaining this needs un-

Preliminary crossing of parents possessing com-

derstanding the method of heredity conditioning of this

plementary traits based on the phenotype followed by

Attribute (El-Bramawy and Shaban, 2007). It will be

selection in subsequent clonal generations is one of the

great to define if the gene action for earliness is due to

potato breeding methods (Sleper and Poehlman, 2006).

additive, non-additive, dominant or epistatic effects and

Identifying of clones for release as new varieties of po-

their interaction with the environment. To evaluate the

tato, can be done with selection is based on phenotype

efficiency of a given parent in hybrid combinations,

values (Lynch and Walsh, 1998; Bradshaw and

combining abilities (General Combining Ability (GCA)

Bonierbale, 2010). Since the selection of parents are

and Specific Combining Ability (SCA)) are used in

pertained on their performance, it is difficult to prognos-

plant breeding (Haydar et al., 2009). In a hybrid combi-

ticate the segregation template of the F1 progeny

nation, GCA determines the average efficiency of a pa-

because the potato is a highly heterozygous crop

rental line and as the same way, SCA is the portion of

(Wolfgang et al., 2009). Successful breeding is attained

an inbred line to hybrid efficiency in a cross with a de-

through incorporating the eligible alleles into a single

termined inbred line in relation to its portions in crosses

genotype and testing their stability and adaptation

with a domain of distinctive inbred lines (Sleper and

(Acquuah, 2007). Dominance and epistatic effects con-

Poehlman, 2006; Panhwar et al., 2008). SCA dedicate

tribute to clone performance, therefore potatoes are

conditions were specified crosses do better or worse

highly heterozygous. However, the value of the cross

than anticipated based on the efficiency of the parent

should not be assumed unless the progeny has been test-

captive (Panhwar et al., 2008). SCA is due to non-

ed (Muthoni et al., 2012). Breeding of potato has been

additive gene effects while GCA is mainly imputed to

used to develop genotypes for persistence to biotic and

additive gene action (Shattuck et al., 1993). In potato

abiotic stresses, earliness and high yield (Razukas and

breeding, both general and specified combining abilities

Jundalas, 2006; Azhar et al., 2007). Among these attrib-

are fundamental in conditioning traits and they are both

utes, earliness is important in areas with land paucity,

constants in the F1 generation because there is no subse-

multiple cropping systems or short rainy concise. Such

quent segregation with clonal breeding supplies. For

genotypes would be good for highlands in Iran and else-

tuber yield and quality attributes in crosses between non

where where genotypes would need to mature quickly

- related parents GCA seems to be significantly larger

making land readily accessible for other crops for the

than SCA whereas SCA appears to be more substantial

next cropping season thus increasing agricultural

among related parents (Ortiz and Golmizaie, 2004). In

productivity. Earliness in shorter rainy seasons simpli-

regard to crop maturity, GCA effects regard to be more

fies drought escape, a trait that is decisive in climate

significant than SCA effects (Johansen et al., 1967).

change conditions of diminished or disordered rainfall

Moreover, additive and non additive effects manage the

templates (Banziger et al., 2000). Breeding for earli-

total yields of tuber and puberty (Buso et al., 2006).

ness has also been considered advantageous, so its guid-

This study was to determine the combining ability ef-

ance to release from some diseases that become visible

fects for phenological traits of selected potato clones

late in the season such as late blight (Razukas and

and their crosses. Selected parental clones and promis-

Jundalas, 2006). However, in potato breeding for earli-

ing families will be used for further breeding in Iran and

ness has not been deliberately followed in Iran for rea-

similar agro-ecologies.

sons of producing versatile genotypes mighty of stabil1157

Journal of Research in Ecology (2017) 5(2): 1156–1165

Dehdar et al., 2017 orded for 50% flowering, days to stolen appearance,

MATERIALS AND METHODS Seven high-yielding commercial cultivars of

growing period, flowering period and number of days to

potato (Agria, Savalan, Picasso, Caesar, Daifla, Satina

tuber formation for five random plant basis in each rep-

and Luca) and eleven progressive potato clones, (UT42

lication.

and UT43 which were obtained from the cross of

Variance analysis of controls and varieties were

S. tuberosum L. ssp. andigena; three advanced and high

performed on the basis of complete block design using

-yielding clones of S. tuberosum designated AS10,

SPSS 22 software (SPSS, Inc., Chicago). The effect of

AS12, AS14, AS20, AS72 and AS692, and HS, Stbrkz

each block for each treatment was calculated and each

and Stbr2 were obtained from the cross of

S. tu-

treatment was corrected based on the block effect. The

berosum × S. Stoloniferum) were crossed reciprocally,

analysis of design allowed us to estimate the genetic

in the Ardabil Natural Resources and Agricultural Re-

variances of the response variables.

search Station (located in 47° and 59‘ North, 39° and

The phenotypic and genotypic variances of each

22’ East, 1390 m above sea level) during the summer of

trait were estimated from the RCBD analysis of vari-

2012 and the best cultivars and clones were determined

ance. The expected mean squares under the assumption

when they were selected as the female or male parent.

of a random effects model was computed from linear

By pushing petals aside and removing anthers,

combinations of the main squares and the phenotypic

the flower buds of parent were castrated. The castrated

and genotypic coefficient of variations were computed

flower buds placed in bags. The next day, flower buds

as per the methods suggested (Burton and Devane,

were pollinated and labeled. The ripe and fallen berries

1953).

were collected after about six weeks. The ripened berries were processed by cutting them and emptying the seeds into a basin containing clean water. The harvested

where, MSg = mean square due to genotype; MSe =

seeds were washed and spread on filter papers and

environmental variance (error mean square) and r =

placed to air-dry overnight. To break dormancy, the

number of replication.

seeds were soaked in 1500 ppm GA3 solution for 24 hours and thereafter they were rinsed and immediately sown (Jackson and Hanneman, 1999). Weathering was done and the seedlings were sprayed against pests and diseases as required and seedlings were transplanted to the field four weeks later. In the next year, to appraise

Broad sense heritability was estimated based on the

the genetic parameters (GCA, SCA and H2b), 30 seed-

formula given by (Allard 1960) as follows:

lings from each family (54 cross) and 18 parents (control) were planted in the augmented design with 5fivereplications. The distance between seedlings lines

Genetic advance as a percent of the mines were estimat-

were 75 cm. Agricultural operations include weeding,

ed as descriptively by (Allard,1960) as:

ridging and pest control were done as per recommendations for potato production in Iran.

Estimation error and effect of block were evaluated using control observations. Observations were recJournal of Research in Ecology (2017) 5(2): 1156–1165

where, K= the standardized selection differential of 5 % (2.063); VP = phenotypic standard deviation and H2B=broad sense heritability.

1158

Dehdar et al., 2017 Phenotypic variance was relatively greater than the genotypic variance in magnitude for all characters considth

The GCA and SCA effects of ijk observation

ered. Phenotypic coefficient of variation ranged from

were estimated by adopting the following model.

4.47% for growing period to 23.69% for flowering peri-

Xijk = μ + gi + gj + sij

od. The phenotypic and genotypic coefficient of varia-

where, μ= population mean; gi= GCA effect of ith feth

male parent; gj= GCA effect of j male; sij= SCA effect th

th

of hybrid of i female with j male.

tion values can be categorized as low (<10%), moderate (10-20%), and high (>20%) as indicated by Robinson and Barry (1966). Moderate and low phenotypic coeffi-

The individual effects of GCA and SCA were

cient of variation were observed for all of the traits

estimated from the data obtained from two way tables of

except of flowering period. The traits which exhibited

female vs. male as given below. In this each data was

high estimates of genotypic and phenotypic coefficient

totaled over replications.

of variations had a high probability of improvement

Two way table for female vs. male:

through selection while traits with low estimates the

Male

1

2 3 ...............

n Total

improvement through selection is difficult or virtually impractical due to the masking effect of environment on

Female 1 2 3 . . n Total

Xij . . . . .

X.j.

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............

. . . . . . .

Xi.. . . . . .

X…

the genotypic effect (Singh,1990).

The heritability estimates were found higher for all the characters studied from 77% to 58% indicating that the characters are less influenced by environmental factors. The flowering period and growing period recorded highest and lowest genetic advance as a percentage of the mean (37.64 and 5.63 respectively). Genetic advance

where, X… = Total of all hybrid combination; Xi.. = Toth

in general was low for all of the characters studied,

tal of i female over ‘t’ male and ‘r’ replications; X. j. =

which showed a moderate genetic advance as a percent-

Total of jth male over ‘l’ female and ‘r’ replication and

age of the mean. The low value of genetic advance for

th

th

Xij. =Total of the hybrid between i female and j male

these traits showed that these characters are not governed

over ‘r’ replications (Choudahry, 2002)

by additive genes and selection could not be rewarded for the improvement of these traits. In general, it has been

RESULTS

accepted that the genetic coefficient of variation was not

Analysis of variance

sufficient to test heritable variation, so more reliable pro-

Significant differences among parents for all

cedures need to estimate the heritability and the genetic

studied traits were observed with analysis of variance

advance. GCV, H2B and GA estimates would be effective

(Table 1). Finding of significant difference between of

during the use of election in the breeding programs. In

parents indicated the presence of genetic variation

making for these decisions, H2B estimated by the variance

among them that could be used in selection for favora-

components method would be effective. Mishra et al.

ble traits.

(2006) also derived that high GA would be valuable in

Genotypic and phenotypic coefficient of variation

selection schedules. H2B estimates based on the growing

Estimates of the genetic parameters (VG, VP,

genotypes at several environments (locations and years)

H b, GCV, PCV, GA and GAM) are shown in Table 2.

will help to breeders in deciding about the breeding pro-

2

1159

Journal of Research in Ecology (2017) 5(2): 1156–1165

Dehdar et al., 2017 Table 1. Mean squares for the 18 parents 50% F DSA GP FR

Df Replication

4

Cultivars Error

69.66

12.57

**

17 68

46.84 **

1.56 **

NDTF

24.23 **

15.29

349.7 77.24

68.06 16.10

163.9 68.6

4.09 0.991

283.6 64.32

49.07** 16.89

16

8

7

14

25

7

CV%

**

FP

50% F: 50% Flowering, DSA: Days to stolen appearance, GR: Growing period, FR: Flowering rate, FP: flowering period, NDTF: Number of days to tuber formation **:Significant at 1% grams. Due to their stabile genetic structure in clones of

4.63, -4.43 -4.03 (Stbr2 F, HS M, As692 and Stbr2 M).

potato, additive, dominant and epistatic type of genetic

For growing period GCA effects varied from12.99,

variability could be observed. For these reason, Ozturk

10.99 and 8.66 (UT43 M, F and UT42 M) to -8.51, -

and Yildirim, (2014) Concluded that estimation of broad

7.01, -7.81 and -8.01 (AS692 M and F, Stbr2 M and F).

sence heritability by using the variance components

For flowering rate GCA effects varied from 0.92 and

method might be dependable in potatoes in comparison

0.66 (UT43 F and AS10 F) to -0.83, -0.73and -0.68

with the generatively producing crops .

(AS72 F, AS692 M andAS12 F). For Flowering period

GCA Effects and mean performance of the parents

GCA effects varied from 8.5 and 6.5 (Stbrkz F and

GCA and SCA effects of the selected parents as

UT43 F) to -9.5 and -7 (Agria F and AS692 M).Finally

combined with other genotypes were estimated in this

for number of days to tuber formation GCA effects var-

study. Estimates of GCA effects varied from 14.8, 11.9,

ied from 7.44,6.94, 6.44 and 6.27 (Agria F, UT43 M,

10.3 and 10.3 (Caesar F, HS F, HS M and Agria F

UT43 F and UT42 M) to -5.16, -4.56 and -4.23 (Stbr2

respectively) to -10.2, -7.53, -7.45, -6.2, -6.03 (AS72 F,

M, AS692 M and Stbr2 F). Based on these estimates, it

Savalan M, AS14 M, AS14 F and Satina M) to50%

seems that, AS692 and Stbr2 cultivars with the least

flowering (Table 3). For days to stolen appearance,

GCA value (in most of the traits) were considered to be

GCA effects varied from 7.32, 6.57, 6.57 and 5.74

an appropriate parent for hybridization as a negative

(UT43 M, Agria F, UT 43 F and UT42 M) to -4.76, -

combiner to reduce this traits. The highest GCA values

Table 2. Estimate of genotypic and phenotypic variance, heritability of 11 evaluated variables in 18 potato parents S.No.

50% F

DSA

GP

FR

FP

NDTF

1

VG

54.496

10.386

19.062

0.6198

43.86

6.436

2

VP

69.94

13.606

32.78

0.818

56.72

9.814

3

2

H

B

0.78

0.76

0.58

0.76

0.77

0.76

4

GCV

13.48

6.54

3.59

11.23

20.84

4.47

5

PCV

15.27

7.48

4.71

12.9

23.69

5.52

6

GA (5%)

13.46

5.78

6.85

1.42

11.96

4.91

7

GAM%

24.57

11.74

5.63

20.23

37.64

8.66

50% F: 50% Flowering, DSA: Days to stolen appearance, GR: Growing period, FR: Flowering rate, FP: flowering period, NDTF: Number of days to tuber formation VG: Genotypic variance; VP: Phenotypic variance; H2B: Broad Since heritability; GCV: Genotypic coefficient variation; PCV: Phenotypic coefficient variation; GA: Genetic advance; GAM: Genetic advance as percent of mean.

Journal of Research in Ecology (2017) 5(2): 1156â&#x20AC;&#x201C;1165

1160

1161 10.3 -1.2 1.52 14.8 -6.03 -0.87 -2.2 3.55 -7.53 0.9 2.3 1.3 -1.7 -5.7 -3.7 -1.7 6.3 -5.2 -2.7 11.9 10.3 -5.7 -5.2 -2.3 0.3

F F M F M F M F M F M F F M F M F M F M F M F M F

61±3.7 61±2.8 75±4.3 75±2.8 51±1.2 51±1.8 47.2±4.1 47.2±2.6 60.8±2.5 60.8±1.8

47.6±3.4 47.6±2.9

48.2±4.9 56.4±3.7 56.4±1.2 55.2±5

58.8±2.2 51±4.8 61±5.1 61±5.3 50±3.1 50±1.7 54.6±1.1 54.6±4.2 48.2±1.7

-1.43 2.57 -4.43 -2.76 -4.63 -.343 -1.43 0.07 -4.03 -4.76

-1.43 1.07

1.97 0.9 -2.18 1.97

6.57 -2.31 0.12 4.07 1.24 0.4 -1.93 0.57 -2.26

54.6±4 54.6±0.4 47.2±5.1 47.2±3.1 46.8±4.1 46.8±2.3 52.6±2.9 52.6±3.4 43.4±3.4 43.4±2.8

52.2±1.7 52.2±1.2

47±1.8 46±0.9 46±4.1 56.8±2.2

47±2.4 45±3 52±1.5 52±2.1 49±4.3 49±2.7 48±2.2 48±3.1 47±2.4

-2.01 0.01 -8.51 -7.01 -3.61 -3.51 -3.01 -0.01 -7.81 -8.01

-0.01 -3.01

5.39 4.66 0.99 2.99

5.99 -0.01 -3.79 2.99 1.32 -0.18 -6.01 -3.76 1.99

127.8±1.2 127.8±2.5 117.8±0.6 117.8±0.8 113.6±2.6 113.6±4.1 120.6±3.1 120.6±5.1 111±2.3 111±2.6

124.6±1.3 124.6±2.3

128±1.8 125±3.2 125±2.8 131.6±4.1

120.8±2.1 120.4±3.2 118.2±4.1 118.2±0.9 122±0.6 122±1.9 114.2±4.2 114.2±4.8 128±1.3

0.02 -0.68 -0.73 -0.32 0.2 -0.33 0.42 0.42 -0.4 -0.58

0.02 -0.63

0.6 0.62 0.39 0.66

-0.38 -0.05 -0.64 0.07 -0.05 -0.15 0.09 -0.08 0.33

7.88±0.6 7.88±1.4 6.66±0.1 6.66±0.5 6.24±0.7 6.24±0.9 7.18±0.6 7.18±0.4 5.34±0.6 5.34±0.7

7.14±0.3 7.14±0.4

7.96±0.7 7.76±0.6 7.76±1.1 8.82±0.6

5.84±0.6 6.78±0.1 6.04±0.2 6.04±0.4 6.64±0.2 6.64±0.6 6.94±0.8 6.94±1 7.96±0.2

1.5 -0.5 -7 -4.5 -0.1 -1.5 -4.5 8.5 -3.3 -3.83

-2.5 -0.5

3.9 3.5 -0.5 5.7

-9.5 -5.25 -1.17 1.5 3.5 0 -1 1 4.5

34.2±2.6 34.2±2.1 24.6±2.1 24.6±2.3 22.8±1.8 22.8±2.1 26±2 26±2.3 16.2±1.9 16.2±1.7

32.4±2.1 32.4±1.8

42.8±1.5 38.8±3.2 38.8±2.3 42.8±2.7

26±2.2 27.2±1.8 34.4±1.7 34.4±2.2 38.2± 38.2±2.3 35.4±1.8 35.4±1.5 42.8±1.6

-1.56 1.44 -4.56 -2.56 -3.16 -2.56 -2.56 -0.56 -5.16 -4.23

-1.06 0.94

1.44 1.11 -1.06 1.44

7.44 -1.18 -0.34 3.44 0.77 0.11 -2.31 -0.81 -1.06

61±4.2 61±3.7 55.6±1.8 55.6±2.6 47.2±2.4 47.2±2.1 57.8±2.7 57.8±3.8 51.8±2.4 51.8±1.6

61.2±3 61.2±2.7

57.8±1.8 55.6±1.5 55.6±2.1 63.8±2.4

57.4±4.2 53.8±3.9 59±2.8 59±4.1 57.2±3.2 57.2±1.6 55±3.8 55±2.6 57.8±3

AS14

M -7.45 46±2.8 -0.93 53±0.6 0.49 128.4±3.1 0.14 7.7±0.5 3 39.6±3.6 -0.81 61.2±0.8 F -6.2 46±3.2 0.32 53±±0.1 1.24 128.4±1.4 0.07 7.7±0.2 3.75 39.6±2.8 0.44 61.2±0.9 M 6.3 60.8±4.1 5.74 49.4±4.2 8.66 118.6±2.3 0.35 7.14±0.4 -2.17 24.2±2.2 6.27 56.2±2.4 UT42 M 5.55 58.8±1.8 7.32 50.4±2.2 12.99 128.2±2.5 0.52 7.9±0.5 3.25 33.6±2.3 6.94 56.2±2.6 UT43 F 0.3 58.8±0.7 6.57 50.4±3.1 10.99 128.2±3.4 0.92 7.9±0.3 6.5 33.6±1.9 6.44 56.2±2.3 F -10.2 37±2.8 -3.43 45±0.8 -0.51 121.6±1.8 -0.83 5.96±0.9 -2 27.1±1.8 -2.56 53.4±3.1 AS72 50% F: 50% Flowering, DSA: Days to stolen appearance, GR: Growing period, FR: Flowering rate, FP: flowering period, NDTF: Number of days to tuber formation F and M: Female and Male respectively

Stbr2

Stbrkz

HS

AS692

AS12

AS20

AS10

Daifla

Savalan

Picasso

Satina

Caesar

Agria Luca

Table 3. Estimates of mean and general combing ability of 11 evaluated variables in 18 potato parents (female and male) Parent 50% F DSA GP FR FP NDTF GCA Mean GCA Mean GCA Mean GCA Mean GCA Mean GCA Mean

Dehdar et al., 2017

of traits was observed in Agria, UT43 and UT42 (Table

Agria, UT43 and UT42 may be good combiners for late

3). These parents could be use in hybridization pro-

maturity breeding programs according to the result of

grams for improving and enhancing of these traits. The

this research. Information on combining abilities of the

results of this study indicated that the AS692, AS72, HS

potential parents enables the breeder recognition of bet-

and Stbr2 cultivars may be good combiners for earliness

ter parental forms, next introducing them into crossing

and containing positive alleles for them and in return,

programs in order to generate genetic variation in new

Journal of Research in Ecology (2017) 5(2): 1156–1165

Dehdar et al., 2017 Female*male Daifela×AS20 Daifela×Stbr2 Daifela×HS Daifela×UT42 Luca×AS14 Luca×AS692 Luca×AS20 Luca×StbrKz Luca×Stbr2 Luca×HS Luca*UT42 Luca×UT43 Satina×AS12 Satina×AS14 Satina×AS692 Satina×Stbr2 Satina×UT42 Satina×UT43 Picasso×AS14 Picasso×Stbr2 Picasso×HS Picasso×UT42 Caeser×HS Caeser×UT43 Agria×UT42 Savalan×AS14 Savalan×Stbr2 Savalan×HS Savalan×UT42 Savalan×UT43 AS72×Savalan

Table 4. Estimates of mean and specific combing ability of 11 evaluated variables in 54 potato cross 50% F DSA GP FR FP SCA Mean SCA Mean SCA Mean SCA Mean SCA Mean 0.29 52±2.5 -0.51 50±2.1 0.08 126±5.2 0.08 7.3±0.61 0.81 34±1.1 -8.41 47±3.6 -1.3 45±2.4 0.48 120±4.6 -0.04 7±0.72 -1.12 30±1.3 -1.51 66±4.2 0.34 47±3.1 0.86 123±3.7 0.24 7.7±0.62 1.11 35±1.8 0.29 63±1.8 -1.43 55±1.7 -1.08 135±4.3 0.022 7.9±0.25 0.48 33±2.1 0.41 47±4 1.28 50±1.2 0.54 126±2.8 0.022 7.1±0.46 0.69 32±2.2 2.54 52±2.3 1.57 47±1.6 1.17 118±4.6 -0.04 6.4±0.75 1.81 24±2.6 -0.71 48±3.5 1.15 50±2.5 0.92 124±4.3 0.23 6.9±0.56 1.56 28±1 2.04 50±3.1 1.65 50±2.1 -1.08 122±2.7 0.11 7.5±0.43 -0.94 29±2.2 2.59 55±2.7 0.37 45±2.3 0.32 117±4.1 0.02 6.5±0.52 -1.37 23±2.1 -0.51 64±3.1 -3.99 41±2.7 -0.03 121±3.5 0.09 7±0.28 1.86 29±1.5 0.29 60±2.2 0.23 55±3.1 0.75 134±3.7 -0.02 7.3±0.54 2.23 28±1.4 3.66 60±3 -0.97 55±1.2 1.42 138±3.1 -0.09 7.6±0.7 0.19 33±2 0.54 54±1.5 -2.72 50±2.4 -1.16 123±2.1 0.51 7.1±0.81 -0.44 35±0.9 4.66 49±1.8 -1.85 50±2.8 -3.03 123±2.5 -0.03 7±0.52 -0.31 38±0.8 1.79 49±1.2 -1.56 47±1.3 -2.41 115±2.

-0.09 6.3±0.63 -0.19 29±1.2 5.84 56±3.1 -2.76 45±1.9 -3.26 114±2 0.07 6.5±0.29 -1.37 30±1.4 3.54 61±2.7 1.11 59±2.5 1.17 135±2.6 0.13 7.4±0.53 1.23 34±0.9 5.91 60±1.5 0.9 60±2.4 1.84 139±2.9 -0.34 7.3±0.46 -4.81 35±2.

2.54 51±1.2 0.65 51±2.8 2.42 123±5.1 -0.03 7.1±0.49 -0.56 36±0.7 -1.28 53±1.9 4.74 51±1.4 2.19 114±3.7 -0.14 6.4±0.63 6.38 36±0.5 4.61 71±2.3 1.38 48±2.6 1.84 118±4.3 0.24 7.2±0.62 0.61 33±2.1 0.41 62±2.8 1.61 58±3.4 1.62 130±5.2 -0.08 7.3±0.51 1.98 33±1.4 1.13 75±3.7 0.6 50±2.7 -0.62 120±3.8 0.33 7±0.74 0.45 33±1.8 0.3 66±4.1 0.63 61±2.6 -0.19 136±3.4 -0.16 7.3±0.41 -1.23 37±2.1 -5.21 66±3.4 -5.64 58±2.1 -8.24 131±5.

0.26 6.7±0.29 2.48 24±2.3 1.53 46±2.9 0.12 51±1.6 0.84 130±5.1 0.11 7.7±0.49 -0.76 40±2.4 5.7 56±4.2 4.21 51±1.7 0.62 121±4.9 0.01 7±0.35 -1.82 32±2.5 -0.39 62±4.1 0.84 48±2.5 0.27 125±4.2 0.08 7.5±0.51 0.41 37±2.1 2.4 60±3.7 1.07 58±2.9 0.05 137±3.1 0.16 8±0.9 0.78 36±2.3 4.78 59±3.5 0.87 59±2.5 -1.28 139±3.6 -0.01 8.2±0.74 -0.26 42±1.9 -26.29 43±2.9 -0.76 47±3 -0.78 127±5 0.14 6.8±0.65 -1.37 34±1.4

NDTF SCA Mean -0.38 59±2.1 -0.75 54±2.3 -0.58 56±1.5 -0.71 65±1.8 -0.05 58±2.3 0.33 55±2.5 -0.17 58±0.9 0.33 57±3 0.46 54±3.1 -0.37 55±2.5 0.5 65±2.7 0.08 65±2.2 -1.8 58±2.6 -1.67 58±2.4 -1.23 55±2.5 -1.16 54±2.1 -0.13 66±2.3 0.45 67±2.3 1.33 59±2.4 0.84 54±2.8 1 56±2.6 1.87 66±2.5 -0.11 58±1.9 0.34 68±1.8 -6.13 67±2 0.58 60±0.7 1.09 56±3 0.25 57±2.5 0.12 66±2 -0.3 66±2.6 -0.05 57±1.8

AS72×Caeser -4.57 48±2.8 -1 49±2.1 -1.69 122±2.9 -0.2 5.7±0.25 -2.35 29±2.1 -1.41 57±2.8 AS10×Savalan 2.4 52±3.4 -0.16 53±2.7 0.72 132±3.6 -0.24 7.9±0.6 -1.09 42±1.6 0.95 62±2.6 AS10×Picasso 0.41 54±2.8 0.38 53±2.2 1.295 124±3.8 0.11 7.8±0.28 -0.89 38±1.9 0.7 60±2.4 AS10×Caeser -2.07 59±4 -0.4 55±1.3 -1.19 126±3.1 -0.09 7.3±0.48 -2.051 37±2.3 -0.41 62±2.3 AS10×Satina 1.54 51±3.1 -0.12 54±1.4 -0.16 128±2.5 0.02 7.6±0.56 -1.64 39±2.8 -0.3 61±2.5 AS10×Daifela -0.71 54±4.2 -0.66 52±5.2 -0.41 130±4.2 -0.09 8.1±0.34 -0.39 40±2.5 -0.88 60±2 AS14×Savalan 1.53 46±1.9 0.12 51±2.3 0.84 130±4 0.31 7.9±0.74 -0.76 40±2.3 0.58 60±2.3 AS14×Picasso 2.54 51±2.8 0.65 51±2.2 2.42 123±2.6 -0.13 7±0.36 -0.56 36±2.1 1.33 59±2.2 AS14×Caeser -3.94 52±2.7 -0.12 53±1.2 -0.06 125±5.1 -0.14 6.7±0.54 -1.73 35±2.6 0..22 61±3 AS14×Satina 4.66 49±2.6 0.15 52±1.8 0.96 127±4.7 -0.02 7±0.67 -0.31 38±2.8 0.33 60±1.9 AS692×Savalan 1.65 49±3.2 0.41 48±4 1.47 122±5.3 -0.06 6.9±0.63 0.36 32±1.5 0.95 57±2.4 AS692×Picasso 1.66 53±3.4 0.94 48±1.3 3.04 115±4.2 0.9 7.4±0.52 0.56 28±1.7 1.7 56±3.1 AS692×Caeser -1.82 57±1.6 0.17 50±2.6 0.56 117±4.2 -0.21 6±0.46 -0.6 27±2.5 0.59 58±2.7 AS12×Caeser -3.07 62±1.4 0.004 54±2.1 1.81 125±4 -0.01 6.4±0.47 -0.85 33±2.1 0.09 61±2.4 AS20×Caeser -3.07 55±1.7 -0.25 53±2.7 -2.69 120±1.9 -0.03 6.4±0.62 0.15 32±2 0.09 61±2.5 AS20×Satina 2.54 49±2.2 0.03 52±1 0.34 124±3.6 -0.11 6.5±0.34 0.56 34±3.1 0.2 60±2 Stbrkz×Savalan 0.15 46±2.6 -0.51 50±1.6 3.22 130±3.8 0.09 8±0.71 7.61 47±1.9 0.95 59±2.6 Stbrkz×Caeser -2.32 55±2.4 0.25 53±2.4 -2.69 120±2.5 0.155 7±0.29 1.65 37±2.5 -0.41 59±2.4 Stbr2×Savalan 2.7 53±2.8 -0.79 46±3.1 0.62 121±2.9 0.01 7±0.56 -0.82 33±2.8 1.09 56±1.5 Stbr2×Picasso 1.71 56±2.7 -0.26 46±2.3 2.19 114±4 -0.04 6.5±0.35 -1.62 28±1.9 0.84 54±1.9 Stbr2×Caeser -2.77 59±3.6 -1.03 48±2.1 -0.29 116±2.6 -0.24 6±0.49 -1.78 28±2.1 -0.27 56±1.5 HS×Caeser -5.87 68±2.8 -0.4 49±2.8 -0.64 120±4.8 -0.17 6.5±0.5 0.45 33±2 -0.11 58±2.6 HS×Daifela -3.51 64±4 0.34 47±2.4 -0.86 123±3.5 -0.46 7±0.27 -2.89 31±1.5 -0.58 56±3.2 UT43×Daifela -3.33 56±1.5 0.36 58±1.7 -3.41 136±2.6 -0.24 8±0.51 0.44 40±1.7 -0.13 66±2.1 50% F: 50% Flowering, DSA: Days to stolen appearance, GR: Growing period, 3.8 FR: Flowering rate, FP: flowering period, NDTF: Number of days to tuber formation

breeding populations. Combining ability of a genotype

binations and indicates additive genetic effects (direct

showed its capableness in cross combination with other

measurement of the breeding value of a parent).

genotypes and helps in selection of best parents for

SCA effects and mean performance of the crosses

crossing and selecting a proper breeding program.

The specific combining ability (SCA) for study-

Sprague (1966) reported that GCA estimates the mean

ing the traits for all the parental crosses was shown in

performance of a parent relatively to all its hybrid com-

table 4. For 50% flowering the most negative SCA val-

Journal of Research in Ecology (2017) 5(2): 1156–1165

1162

Dehdar et al., 2017 ues

were

obtained

crosses

between

selection programs is not effective for breeding of them.

Daifela×Stbr2

(-8.41),

It seems that, AS692 and Stbr2 cultivars were consid-

Agria×UT42 (-5.21) and HS×Caeser (-5.87). In return,

ered to be suitable parents, with the least GCA value,

positive SCA values were obtained from the crosses

for hybridization as negative combiner to reduce the

between Satina×Stbr2 (5.84), Satina×UT43 (5.91) and

earliness attributes. The results of this study indicated

Savalan×Stbr2 (5.7). For days of stolen appearance neg-

that the AS692, AS72, HS and Stbr2 cultivars may be

ative SCA values were obtained from the crosses be-

good combiners for earliness and containing positive

tween Agria×UT42 (-5.64) and Luca×HS (-3.99) and

alleles for them and in return, Agria, UT43 and UT42

positive SCA were obtained between Picasso×Stbr2

may be good combiners for late maturity breeding pro-

(4.74) and Savalan×Stbr2 (4.21).For growing period

grams according to the result of this research. Accord-

negative SCA values obtained from the crosses between

ing

Agria×UT42 (-8.24) and UT43×Daifela (-3.41) and as

Daifela×Stbr2,

the same way positive SCA values observed from the

na×AS14, Satina×AS692 and Satina×Stbr2 were the

crosses

and

best hybrids because of the most negative SCA effects

Stbrkz×Savalan (3.22). For flowering period negative

for earliness attributes. In general, it has been admitted

SCA values were obtained from the cross between Sati-

that the GCV was not adequate to assay heritable varia-

na×UT43 (-4.81) and positive SCA values were ob-

tion, so more dependable methods need to estimate the

tained from the crosses between Stbrkz×Savalan (7.61)

H2B and the GA. Estimates of H2B, GCV and GA

and Picasso×Stbr2 (6.38).For number of days to tuber

would be useful to the breeder during the application of

formation negative SCA values were achieved from

selection in the breeding programs. Mishra et al. (2006)

cross between Agria×UT42 (-6.13) and positive SCA

also derived that high H2B and GA would be valuable

values

were obtained from crosses between Picas-

in selection programes. Potato clones could have the

so×UT42 (1.87), AS692×Picasso (1.7), Picasso×AS14

additive, dominant and epistatic type genetic variability

(1.33) and AS14×Picasso (1.33). According of the re-

due to their constant genetic structure. For that reason,

sults,Agria×UT42, AS72×Caeser,Daifela×Stbr2, Lu-

estimation of heritabilities by using the variance compo-

ca×UT43,Satina×AS12,

Satina×AS14,Satina×AS692

nents method might be more reliable in potatoes in com-

and Satina×Stbr2 were the best crosses because of the

parison to the generatively producing crops (Ozturk and

most negative SCA effects of the studied traits.

Yildirim, 2014).Information on combining abilities of

AS72×Savalan

from

(-26.29),

between

the

AS692×Picasso

(3.04)

of

the

results,

Agria×UT42,

Luca×UT43,

AS72×Caeser,

Satina×AS12,

Sati-

the potential parents enables the breeder recognition of DISCUSSION

better parental forms, next introducing them into cross-

The heritability estimates in this research were

ing programs in order to generate genetic variation in

found moderate to high for all the characters studied

new breeding populations. In F1 hybrid breeding, analy-

indicated that the characters are less influenced by envi-

sis of combining ability has been used in practical plant

ronmental factors. High estimates of the coefficient of

improvement programs to determine the relative im-

variability, heritability and genetic advance for plant

portance of General Combining Ability (GCA), Specific

traits indicated that traits are largely controlled by addi-

Combining Ability (SCA) of the parents in the perfor-

tive gene action and that strength selection for them

mance of F1 hybrids, and superior parents for crossing

would be effective. In return, low estimates indicate that

in hybridization programs (Yoshioka et al., 2010). Gen-

these traits are influenced by environmental factors and

eral combining ability is the manifestation of the addi-

1163

Journal of Research in Ecology (2017) 5(2): 1156–1165

Dehdar et al., 2017 tive gene action for the selection of parents and SCA

El-Bramawy MAS and Shaban WI. (2007). Nature of

represents the non-additive gene action (Raghvendra et

gene action for yield, yield components and major dis-

al., 2011).

ease resistance in Sesame (Sesamum indicum L.). Research Journal of Agriculture and Biological Sciences, 3(6): 821-826.

REFERENCES Akhilesh Chandra Mishra, Singh NP, Shashi Kamal, and Virender Kumar. (2006). Studies on genetic variability, heritability and genetic advance in potato

George Acquaah. (2007). Principles of plant genetics and breeding. Blackwell publishing, Maden, MA, USA.

(Solanum tuberosum L.). International Journal of Plant

Gulsum Ozturk and Zihin Yildirim. (2014). Herita-

Science, 1(1): 39-41.

bility estimates of some quantitative traits in potatoes.

Almantas Razukas and Juozas Jundulas. (2006).

Turkish Journal of Field Crops, 19(2): 262-267.

Potato breeding for nematode and disease resistance.

Haydar A, Alam MK, Khokan, EH, ARA T and

ŽEMĖS ŪKIO MOKSLAI, 3: 26-29.

Khalequzzaman KM. (2009). Combining ability and

Azhar FM, Hussain A and Shakeel A. (2007). Combining ability of plant characters related to earliness in

genetic variability studies in potato. Journal of Soil Nature, 3(2): 1-3.

Gossypium hirsutum L. Journal of Agriculture and So-

Jackson SA and RE. Hanneman Jr. (1999). Crossa-

cial Sciences, 2: 63-66.

bility between cultivated and wild tuber- and non –tuber

Banziger M, Edmeades GO, Beck D and Bellon M.

- bearing Solanums. Euphytica, 109(1): 51-67.

(2000). Breeding for drought and nitrogen stress toler-

Jane Muthoni, Hussein Shimelis, Rob Melis and

ance in maize. From Theory to Practice. Mexico, D.F,

Jackson Kabira. (2012). Reproduction biology and

CIMMYT. International Maize and Wheat Improvement

early generation’s selection in conventional potato

Centre. 16-17.

breeding. Australian Journal of Crop Science, 6(3): 488

Bradshaw JE and Bonierbale M. (2010). Potatoes, In

-497.

Bradshaw, JE edition. Root and tuber crops. Hand book

Johansen RH, Miller JC, Newsom DW and Fontenot

of plant breeding 7. Springer science + Business media,

JF. (1967). The influence of environment on the specif-

New York. 1-52 p.

ic gravity, plant maturity and vigour of potato proge-

Burton GW and Devane EH. (1953). Estimating herit-

nies. American Potato Journal. 44(4): 107-122.

ability in tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea) from repli-

Michael Lynch and Bruce Walsh. (1998). Genetics

cated clonal material. Agronomy Journal, 45(10): 478-

and analysis of quantitative traits. Sinauer Associates

481.

Incorporated, Sanderland USA, 874p.

Buso GSC, Paiva MR, Torres AC, Resende FV, Fer-

Ortiz R and Golmirzaie AM. (2004). Combining abil-

reira MA, Buso JA, David Allen Sleper and John

ity analysis and correlation between breeding values in

th

Milton Poehlman. (2006). Breeding field crops, 5 ed.

true potato seed. Plant Breeding, 123(6): 564-567.

Blackwell Publishing Professional. 2121 State Avenue, Ames, Iowa, 432p.

Journal of Research in Ecology (2017) 5(2): 1156–1165

1164

Dehdar et al., 2017 Gulsum Ozturk and Zihin Yildirim. (2014). Herita-

Wolfgang J, Mwanga R, Andrade M and Espinoza J.

bility estimates of some quantitative traits in potatoes.

(2009). Selection methods. Breeding clonally propagat-

Turkish Journal of Field Crops, 19(2): 262-267.

ed crops, Food and Agriculture Organization of the

Nitin Premnarayan Choudahry. (2002). Combining

United Nations, Rome, 275-322 p.

ability and heterosis studies for development of early maturing rice hybrids. M.Sc. Thesis. Indira Gandhi Agricultural University, Raipur.

Panhwar SA, Baloch MJ, Jatoi WA, Veesar NF and Majeedano MS. (2008). Combining ability estimates from line x tester mating design in upland cotton. Proceedings of the Pakistan Academy of Sciences, 45: 6974.

Robert Allard W. (1960). Principles of Plant Breeding.

John Wiley and Sons Inc. New York p .485.

Robinson P and Bary DF. (1966). Expected effects on the inbreeding coefficient and rate of gene loss of four methods of reproducing finite diploid population.

Biometrics 21: 447-485.

Shattuck VI, Christie B and Corso C. (1993). Principles of Griffing’s combining ability analysis. Genetica.

90(1): 73-77.

Singh BD. (1990). Plant Breeding. Kalyani publishers, New Delhi, India. 674 p.

Singh Raghvendra, Singh Anand Kumar, Kumar Sanjay, Singh BK and Singh SP. (2011). Studies on combining ability in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.).

Vegetable Sciences, 38(1): 49-52.

Sprague GF. (1966). Plant Breeding. Ames, IA, USA: Iowa State University Press.

Yosuke Yoshioka, Mitsuhiro Sugiyama and Yoshiteru Sakata. (2010). Combining ability analysis of fruit

Submit your articles online at ecologyresearch.info Advantages

     

Easy online submission Complete Peer review Affordable Charges Quick processing Extensive indexing You retain your copyright

texture in cucumber by mechanical measurement.

Breeding Sciences, 60(1): 65-70. submit@ecologyresearch.info www.ecologyresearch.info/Submit.php.

1165

Journal of Research in Ecology (2017) 5(2): 1156–1165