Nutrients profiling for investigating variation and its effect on heterosis and combining ability of cucumber (Cucumis sativus)


Abstract views: 156 / PDF downloads: 85 / PDF downloads: 12

Authors

  • YASHPAL SINGH BISHT G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, Uttarakhand, 263 145, India
  • D K SINGH G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, Uttarakhand, 263 145, India
  • N K SINGH G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, Uttarakhand, 263 145, India
  • SHASHANK SHEKHAR SINGH Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Nawada, Bihar
  • RAJENDRA BHATT G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, Uttarakhand, 263 145, India
  • MUKESH KUMAR G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, Uttarakhand, 263 145, India
  • ARVIND CHAUHAN G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, Uttarakhand, 263 145, India

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v93i7.136352

Keywords:

Cucumber, Combining ability, Gynoecious, Heterosis, Nutritional, Quality

Abstract

An experiment was conducted at Vegetable Research Centre, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, Uttarakhand, during 2021 and 2022 to determine the nutritional quality, variation and its effect on cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.). Heterosis for nutritional quality in 30 F1 of cucumber obtained by L×T method involving 10 gynoecious and 3 monoecious cucumber, was studied and significant difference was found in all the characters. Based on per se performance, PPCUC-6 (gynoecious) followed by PPCUC-3 (gynoecious) are best performing parents and PPCUC-7 × PCUC-8 (monoecious) is best performing hybrid for most of characters. The cross combination PPCUC-10 × PCUC-28 (monoecious) based on mid parent, PPCUC-10 × PCUC-28 (monoecious) and PPCUC-12 × PCUC-28 (monoecious) based on better parent and PPCUC-12 × PCUC-28 (monoecious) based on standard parent are found best hybrids for maximum traits. PPCUC-3 (gynoecious) and PCUC-28 (monoecious) were best general combiner for most of characters, which can be used as a parents in improvement of nutritional quality. PPCUC-12 × PCUC-28 (monoecious) was best specific combiner for most of characters. Information of gene actions obtained from the study indicates the predominance of dominant gene action which is highly desirable to develop hybrids in cucumber with better nutritional quality.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abo-Arab D E, Ebido A I, Aly M A, Wahb-Allah M A and Bayoumy A M. 2020. General performance, heterosis and potence ratio for some important characters using complete diallel cross among five inbred lines of cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) under greenhouse conditions. International Journal of Advance Agricultural Research 25(4): 364–78.

Allard R W. 1960. Principles of Plant Breeding, pp. 485. John Willey and Sons. Inc. New York.

Bhowmick B K and Jha S. 2015. Dynamics of sex expression and chromosome diversity in Cucurbitaceae: a story in the making. Journal of Genetics 94(4): 793–808.

Bradford M M. 1976. A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Analytical Biochemistry 72(1-2): 248–54.

Dabholkar A R. 1992. Elements of Biometrical Genetics, pp. 187–214. Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi.

Das S P, Mandal A R, Maurya P K, Bhattacharjee T, Banerjee S, Mandal A K and Chattopadhyay A. 2019. Genetic control of economic traits and evidence of economic heterosis in crosses involving monoecious cucumber genotypes. International Journal of Vegetable Science 26(2): 1–22.

Dixit Y and Kar A. 2010. Protective role of three vegetable peels in alloxan induced diabetes mellitus in male mice. Plant Foods for Human Nutrition 65: 284–89.

Fasahat P, Rajabi A, Rad J M and Derera J. 2016. Principles and utilization of combining ability in plant breeding. Biometrics and Biostatistics International Journal 4(1): 1–24.

Fonseca A and Patterson F L. 1968. Hybrid vigour in a seven parent diallel cross in common winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Crop Science 8: 85–88.

Hayes H K, Immer I R and Smith D C. 1956. Methods of Plant Breeding, pp. 535. New York, McGraw Hill Company Inc.

Kaur K, Dhall R K and Chawala N. 2016. Heterosis and combining ability for quality attributing traits in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.). Agriculture Research Journal 53(4): 475–79.

Kempthorne O. 1957. An Introduction to Genetic Statistics, pp. 458–71. John Wiley and Sons, NewYork.

Kumar S, Kumar R, Kumar D, Gautam N, Singh N, Parkash C, Dhiman M R and Shukla Y R. 2017. Heterotic potential, potence ratio, combining ability and genetic control of yield and its contributing traits in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.). New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science 45(3): 175–90.

Lindsay W L and Norvell W A. 1978. Development of a DTPA soil test for zinc, iron, manganese and copper. Soil Science Society of America Journal 42: 421–28.

Malick C P and Singh M B. 1980. Plant Enzymology and Histo-enzymology, pp. 286. Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi, India.

Mukherjee P K, Nema N K, Maity N and Sarkar B K. 2013. Phytochemical and therapeutic potential of cucumber. Fitoterapia 84: 227–36.

Nagar A, Sureja A K, Kar A, Bhardwaj R, Krishnan S G and Munshi A D. 2018. Profiling of mineral nutrients and variability study in pumpkin (Cucurbita moschata) genotypes. Agricultural Research 7(2): 225–31.

Nema N K, Maity N, Sarkar B and Mukherjee P K. 2011. Cucumis sativus fruit-potential antioxidant, anti-hyaluronidase, and anti-elastase agent. Archives of Dermatological Research 303: 247–52.

Okalebo J R, Gathua K W and Woomer P L. 2002. Laboratory Methods of Soil and Plant Analysis: A Working Manual, 2nd edn, pp. 55–60. Sacred Africa, Nairobi, Kenya.

Olsen S, Cole C, Watanabe F and Dean L. 1954. Estimation of available phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium bicarbonate, pp. 1–19. USDA Circular No 939, US Government Print Office, Washington, D.C.

Panse V G and Sukhatme P V. 1967. Statistical Method for Agricultural Workers, 4th edn, pp. 225–30. ICAR, New Delhi.

Pickett E E and Koirtyohann S R. 1969. Emission flame photometry- A new look at an old method. Analytical Chemistry 41(14): 28A–42A.

Ranganna S. 1979. Manual of Analysis of Fruits and Vegetables Products, pp. 105–06. Tata McGraw Hill Book Company, New Delhi.

Sheoran O P, Tonk D S, Kaushik L S, Hasija R C and Pannu R S. 1998. Statistical software package for agricultural research workers. Recent advances in information theory, statistics and computer applications, pp. 139–43.

Hooda D S, Hasija R C (Eds). Department of Mathematics Statistics, Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisa, Haryana.

Singh R K and Chaudhary B D. 1997. Biometrical Methods in Quantitative Genetic Analysis, pp. 342. Kalyani Publishers, Ludhiana, Punjab, India.

Tatlioglu T. 1993. Cucumber: Cucumis sativus L. Genetic Improvement of Vegetable Crops, pp. 197–234. Pergamon.

Turner J M. 1953. A study of heterosis in upland cotton II combining ability and inbreeding effects. Agronomy Journal 43: 487–90.

Uthpala T G G, Marapana R A U J, Lakmini K P C and Wettimuny D C. 2020. Nutritional bioactive compounds and health benefits of fresh and processed cucumber (Cucumis Sativus L.). Sumerianz Journal of Biotechnology 3(9): 75–82.

Submitted

2023-05-14

Published

2023-08-08

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

BISHT, Y. S., SINGH, D. K., SINGH, N. K., SINGH, S. S., BHATT, R., KUMAR, M., & CHAUHAN, A. (2023). Nutrients profiling for investigating variation and its effect on heterosis and combining ability of cucumber (Cucumis sativus). The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 93(7), 732–737. https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v93i7.136352
Citation