DIALLEL ANALYSIS FOR EIGHT DIVERGENT INBRED LINES OF MAIZE
Document Type : Original research
10.12816/ejpb.2016.361003
Abstract
28 F1 crosses resulted from crossing among eight white maize inbred lines in a half diallel cross design were grown with check hybrid SC10 at two locations, i.e. Sakha and Sids Agricultural Research Station. The studied traits were days to 50% silking, plant and ear height (cm), grain yield (ard/fed), ear length and diameter (cm), no. of rows/ear and no. of kernels/row. The obtained results could be summarized as follows: Overall difference was found between locations for all traits. The variances among genotypes and their partitioning into general (GCA) and specific (SCA) combining ability were highly significant for all studied traits, indicating that both additive and non-additive gene action were important in the inheritance of all traits. The best inbred for GCA effects (gi) was SK6005/22, for earliness, SK5058/2 for short plant and ear height, Sd7 for grain yield, SK5002/53 for ear length, Gm2 for ear diameter and no. of rows/ear and Sd63 for no. of kernels/row. The best cross for SCA effects (Sij) was SK5002/53 x Gm2 for earliness, SK5058/2 x SK5001/80 for short plant and ear height, SK5001/80 x Sd7 for grain yield and ear diameter, SK5058/2 x Sd63 for ear length, no. of rows/ear and no. of kernels/row. The single cross SK5001/80 x Sd7 (35.77 ard/fed) out-yielded significantly the commercial check SC10 (32.46 ard/fed).
(2016). DIALLEL ANALYSIS FOR EIGHT DIVERGENT INBRED LINES OF MAIZE. Egyptian Journal of Plant Breeding, 20(5), 797-804. doi: 10.12816/ejpb.2016.361003
MLA
. "DIALLEL ANALYSIS FOR EIGHT DIVERGENT INBRED LINES OF MAIZE", Egyptian Journal of Plant Breeding, 20, 5, 2016, 797-804. doi: 10.12816/ejpb.2016.361003
HARVARD
(2016). 'DIALLEL ANALYSIS FOR EIGHT DIVERGENT INBRED LINES OF MAIZE', Egyptian Journal of Plant Breeding, 20(5), pp. 797-804. doi: 10.12816/ejpb.2016.361003
VANCOUVER
DIALLEL ANALYSIS FOR EIGHT DIVERGENT INBRED LINES OF MAIZE. Egyptian Journal of Plant Breeding, 2016; 20(5): 797-804. doi: 10.12816/ejpb.2016.361003