Exploitation of heterosis and combining ability in cucumber (Cucumis sativus) for earliness and yield contributing traits

YASHPAL SINGH  BISHT; D K  SINGH; RAJENDRA  BHATT; ANAND SINGH  RAWAT; MUKESH  KUMAR; SHASHANK SHEKAR  SINGH; CHARU  BISHT

doi:10.56093/ijas.v95i11.153972

Authors

YASHPAL SINGH BISHT Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, Uttarakhand 263 145, India
D K SINGH Nilamber-Pitamber University, Medininagar, Palamu, Jharkhand
RAJENDRA BHATT Veer Chandra Singh Garhwali Uttarakhand University of Horticulture and Forestry, Bharsar, Pauri, Uttarakhand
ANAND SINGH RAWAT Dr Khem Singh Gill Akal College of Agriculture, Eternal University, Baru Sahib, Himachal Pradesh
MUKESH KUMAR Tula’s Institute, Dhoolkot Selaqui, Dehradun, Uttarakhand
SHASHANK SHEKAR SINGH Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Navada, Bihar
CHARU BISHT College of Agriculture, Teerthanker Mahaveer University, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v95i11.153972

Keywords:

Combining ability, Cucumber, Gynoecious, Heterosis, Monoecious

Abstract

The present experiment was conducted during the rainy (kharif) seasons 2021 and the summer season of 2022 at Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, Uttarakhnad to investigate the earliness, yield, variation and its effect on cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.). The present study comprised of 30 F₁ hybrids, developed by line × tester, crossing 10 lines (gynoecious) i.e. PPCUC-2 and PPCUC-3 (parthenocarpic gynoecious line developed by GBPUA&T, Pantnagar), PPCUC-4, PPCUC-5, PPCUC-6, PPCUC-7, PPCUC-9, PPCUC-10, PPCUC-11 and PPCUC-12 and 3 testers (monoecious) parents viz. PCUC-8, PCUC-28 and PCUC-51. A significant difference for mean sum of square was found in all the horticultural traits under study. PPCUC-2 and PPCUC-9 were superior for earliness and PPCUC-3 was best general combiner for yield, which can be used as a parent in breeding programme for development of genoecious × monoecious hybrids. In the cross combination, PPCUC-2 × PCUC-28 for earliness and PPCUC-7 × PCUC-8 is found best hybrids for yield. PPCUC-3 × PCUC-28 was best specific combiner for fruit number. Information of gene actions obtained from the study indicated the predominance of non-additive gene action which is highly desirable to develop hybrids in cucumber with yield traits. Based on heterosis, PPCUC-2 × PCUC-28 and PPCUC-9 × PCUC-28 were most promising crosses for earliness and yield contributing traits. Based on finding, it is also possible to segregate generations using promising hybrids in order to find pure lines with high yields and superior quality fruit.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bairagi S K, Ram H H and Singh D K. 2013. Analysis of combining ability in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) through half diallel mating system. Annals of Horticulture 6: 308–14.

Bisht Y S, Verma A, Banarjee S, Rathore V and Singh D. 2022. Genetic variability and trait association in organically grown genotypes in brinjal. Agricultural Research Journal 59(1): 21–29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5958/2395-146X.2022.00005.9

Cantliffe D J. 1981. Alteration of sex expression in cucumber due to changes in temperature, light intensity, and photoperiod. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 106: 133–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21273/JASHS.106.2.133

Das S P, Mandal A R, Maurya P K, Bhattacharjee T, Banerjee S, Mandal A K and Chattopadhyay A. 2020. Genetic control of economic traits and evidence of economic heterosis in crosses involving monoecious cucumber genotypes. International Journal of Vegetable Science 26: 408–29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19315260.2019.1639873

Deakin J R, Bohn G W and Whitaker T W. 1971. Interspecific hybridization in Cucumis. Economic Botany 25: 195–211. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02860080

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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11130-010-0175-3

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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1968.0011183X000800010025x

Gou C, Zhu P, Meng Y, Yang F, Xu Y, Xia P, Chen J and Li J. 2022. Evaluation and genetic analysis of parthenocarpic germplasms in cucumber. Genes 13: 225. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/genes13020225

Griffing B. 1956. Concept of general and specific combining ability in relation to diallel crossings systems. Australian Journal of Biological Science 10: 463–93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1071/BI9560463

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

Hayes H K and Jones D F. 1916. First generation crosses in cucumber. (In) Annual Report: The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, pp. 319–22.

Jat G S, Munshi A D, Behera T K, Choudhary H and Dev B. 2015. Exploitation of heterosis in cucumber for earliness, yield and yield components utilizing gynoecious lines. Indian Journal of Horticulture 72: 494–99. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-0112.2015.00112.7

Kempthorne O. 1957. An Introduction of Genetic Statistics. John Willey and Sons Inc., New York, USA.

Klieber A, Lin W C, Jolliffe P A and Hall J W. 1993. Training systems affect canopy light exposure and shelf life of long English cucumber. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 118: 786–90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21273/JASHS.118.6.786

Kumar J, Munshi A D, Kumar R, Sureja A K and Sharma R K. 2013. Combining ability and its relationship with gene action in slicing cucumber. Indian Journal of Horticulture Science 70(1): 135–38.

Kumar S, Kumar R, Kumar D, Gautam N, Dogra R K, Mehta D K, Sharma H D and Kansal S. 2016. Parthenocarpic gynoecious parental lines of cucumber introduced from Netherlands for developing high-yielding, quality hybrids. Journal of Crop Improvement 30: 352–69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15427528.2016.1163762

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: 175–90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01140671.2016.1270336

Kumari R, Kumar R and Mehta D K. 2021. Expression of heterosis and residual heterosis for traits of earliness and yield in cross combinations of cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) developed by introgression of indigenous and exotic sources. Scientia Horticulturae 277: 109781. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2020.109781

Manggoel W, Uguru M I, Ogbonna P E and Dasbak M A. 2021. Exploiting combining ability in a diallel cross between native and elite cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) varieties. Journal of Plant Breeding and Crop Science 13: 136–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5897/JPBCS2021.0955

Melchinger A E and Gumber R K. 2015. Overview of Heterosis and Heterotic Groups in Agronomic Crops, pp. 29–44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2135/cssaspecpub25.c3

Larnkey K R and Staub J E (Eds). CSSA Special Publications, Crop Science Society of America, Madison, WI, USA.

Mukherjee P K, Nema N K, Maity N and Sarkar B K. 2013. Phytochemical and therapeutic potential of cucumber. Fitoterapia 84: 227–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fitote.2012.10.003

Nduwumuremyi A, Tongoona P and Habiman S. 2013. Mating design: Helpful tool for quantitative plant breeding analysis. International Journal of Plant Breeding and Genetics 1: 117–29.

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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00403-010-1103-y

Pati K, Munshi A D and Behera T K. 2015. Inheritance of gynoecism in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) using genotype gbs-1 as gynoecious parent. Genetika 47(1): 349–56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2298/GENSR1501349P

Reddy A N K, Munshi A D, Behera T K, Sureja A K and Sharma R K. 2014. Studies on combining ability in cucumber. Indian Journal of Horticulture 71: 349–53.

Sherpa P, Seth T, Shende V D, Pandiarana N, Mukherjee S and Chattopadhyay A. 2014. Heterosis, dominance estimate and genetic control of yield and post-harvest quality traits of tomato. Journal of Applied and Natural Science 6: 625–32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31018/jans.v6i2.507

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., pp. 197–234. Kalloo G and Bergh B O (Eds). Genetic Improvement of Vegetable Crops, Pergamon, Amsterdam. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-040826-2.50017-5

Thind S K and Mahal J S. 2021. Package of Practices for Cultivation of Vegetables, pp. 21–23. Additional Director of Communication for Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana. Tiwari R and Singh D K. 2016. Study of heterosis and combining ability for earliness and vegetative traits in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.). Journal of Applied and Natural Science 8: 999–1005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31018/jans.v8i2.911

Turner J M. 1953. A study of heterosis in upland cotton II combining ability and inbreeding effects. Agronomy Journal 43: 487–90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1953.00021962004500100008x

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