A comparative analysis of biparental and F3 progenies of Indian mustard [Brassica juncea (L.) Czern & Coss]
Main Article Content
Abstract
The present investigation was carried out to assess the genetic variability generated as biparental progenies (BiPs) and F3 populations from the crosses, RH 725 × Urvashi (cross I), DRMRIJ 31 × Urvashi (cross II) and PM 27 × Urvashi (cross III) in Indian mustard [Brassica juncea (L.) Czern & Coss] under field during rabi 2020-24. Both biparental and F3 progenies exhibited significant variability for seed yield and most yield-related traits across all crosses, except for plant height in cross II. However, the mean performance of BiPs was generally higher than the corresponding F3 progenies, indicating the generation of significant genetic variability, shedding light on the dynamics of genetic inheritance and expression within Indian mustard. While the BiPs showcased superior mean performance in pivotal traits, F3 generation displayed competitive superiority in traits including days to 50% flowering, plant height, number of secondary branches per plant, number of seeds per siliqua, 1000-seed weight, biological yield per plant and oil content. It is evident that good recombination occurred from intermating, and also the dominance and epistasis components might have played some role in the increase in the mean of BiPs, compared to F3. For a few traits, the genetic variability carried over to the F3 generation and made selection effective. The study reflected that the use of genetically divergent parents such as RH 725, DRMRIJ 31 and PM 27 crossed with Urvashi enhanced recombination potential and the crosses seem to have facilitated the appearance of novel segregants in both F3 and BiPs and offered enhanced opportunities for selecting transgressive segregants, giving enhanced yield and oil content gain.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Abdel-Moneam M A, Ghoneima M H, EL-Mansy Y M and EL-Shazly M W. 2013. Extent of genetic variability created through biparental mating in cotton (Gossypium barbadense L.). Journal of Plant Production, Mansoura University, 4 (9): 1281-1296.
Agdew B, Verma, S R and Saharan R P. 2014. Comparison of variability generated through biparental mating and selfing in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Forage Research, 40 (2): 98-105.
Amudha K, Arumugachamy S and Thiyagarajan K. 2007. Studies on biparental progenies of rice under water stress condition. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research, 41 (4): 272-276.
Bisen P, Singh P K, Loitongbam B, Namrata, Rathi S R, Upadhyay S and Sinha B. 2019. Genetic analysis and trait association for yield related traits in F2:3 biparental population of rice under slightly sodic condition. Electronic Journal of Plant Breeding, 10 (3): 1105-1112.
Clegg M T, Allard R W and Kahler A L. 1972. Is the gene unit of selection? .Evidence from two experimental plant populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 69 (9): 2474-2478.
Comstock R E and Robinson H F. 1948. The components of genetic variation in populations of biparental progenies and their use in estimating average degree of dominance. Biometrics, 4 (4): 254-266.
Comstock R E and Robinson H F. 1952. Estimation of average dominance of genes. In : Heterosis, pp. 494-515. Iowa State College Press, Ames.
DAFW, Annual Report. 2023. Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India.
DRMR, Vision 2050. 2015. Directorate of Rapeseed-Mustard Research, Bharatpur 321303 Rajasthan.
Dubey S, Singh A K, Verma R and Maurya S. 2022. Response of Indian mustard (Brassica juncea L.) to source and levels of sulphur on oil content and nutrient uptake. The Pharma Innovation Journal, 11 (3): 2399-2403.
Dwivedi C B and Singh I L. 1978. Effects of shock inputs on perceptual vigilance. Perceptual and motor skills, 47 (3): 1207-1212.
El-Mansy Y M. 2015. Impact of mating system on genetic variability and correlation co-efficient in cotton (Gossypium barbadense L.). Minufiya Journal of Agricultural Research, 40 (1): 119-129.
El-Shazly M W, Hamed H H E and Mabrouk A H. 2023. Using biparental mating design to breakup undesirable linkage groups and obtain new recombinations in cotton (Gossypium barbadense L.). Egyptian Journal of Plant Breeding, 27 (2): 139-152.
FAO. 2023. World Food and Agriculture – Statistical Yearbook. Rome.
Gangappa E, Sheriff R A, Ramesh S and Krishnappa. 2003. Extent of genetic variability created through biparental mating in sesame. Journal of Oilseeds Research, 20 (1): 56-60.
Gowthami R, Patil S R and Choudhary R. 2014. Genetic evaluation of F2, F3 and biparental crosses (BIP) in mustard (Brassica juncea L.). Trends in Biosciences, 7 (20): 3237-3241.
Guddadamath S, Mohankumar H D and Salamath P M. 2011. Genetic analysis of association studies in segregating population of Okra. Karnataka Journal of Agriculture Sciences, 24 (4): 432-435.
Hasan M T and Deb A C. 2023. Identification of suitable quantitative traits in chickpea through biparental progeny analysis. Bangladesh Journal of Botany, 52 (3): 731-739.
Jenson N F. 1970. A diallel selective mating system for cereal breeding. Crop Science, 10 (6): 629-635.
Kampli N, Salimath P M and Kajjidoni S T. 2002. Genetic variability created through biparental mating in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Indian Journal of Genetics, 62 (2): 128-130.
Koli N R, Prakash C and Punja S S. 2012. Biparental mating in early segregating generations of aromatic rice. Indian Journal of Agriculture Sciences, 82 (1): 63-65.
Mahalingam A, Robin S, Mohanasundaram K and Pushpam R. 2011. Studies on genetic architecture of biparental progenies for important yield attributes in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Journal of Plant Breeding and Crop Science, 3 (12): 296-301.
Manickavelu A, Nadarajan N, Ganesh S K and Gnanamalar R P. 2006. Genetic analysis of biparental progenies in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Asian Journal of Plant Sciences, 5 (1): 33-36.
Mather K, Jinks J L, Mather K and Jinks J L. 1971. Components of means: additive and dominance effects. Biometrical Genetics: The study of continuous variation, 65-82.
Naik V R, Bentur M G and Paremeshwarappa K G. 2009. Impact of biparental mating on genetic variability and path analysis in safflower. Karnataka Journal of Agriculture Sciences, 22 (1): 44-46.
Patil S, Kalamkar V, Deotale R D, Kamdi S R, Kuchanwar O and Chopde N. 2018. Genetic analysis of siliqua per plant and seed yield per plant in Mustard (Brassica juncea). International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 6 (1): 1355-1360.
Pradeep T and Sumalini K. 2003. Impact of mating system on genetic variability in segregating generations of Asiatic cotton. Indian Journal of Genetics and plant Breeding, 63 (2): 143 – 147.
Prakash V and Verma R P S. 2006. Comparison of variability generated through biparental mating and selfing in six-rowed barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Crop Improvement, 33 (1): 49-52.
Rai B. 1980. Self-incompatibility and its scope for the exploitation of heterosis in Brassica: species. In: Breeding Oilseed Crops, PA V, Ludhiana, pp. 284-295.
Rambhajan, Chauhan Y S and Kumar K. 1991. Natural cross pollination in Indian Mustard. Cruciferae Newsletter, 14: 24-25.
Rudra N, Bentur M G and Parameshwarappa K G. 2009. Impact of biparental mating on genetic variability and path analysis in safflower. Karnataka Journal of Agriculture Sciences, 22 (1): 44- 46.
Sapkal V, Patil S, Sapkal D, Yadav R and Ramawat N. 2018. Assessment of genetic variation and parameters among advanced biparental progeny lines (BIP F3) Brassica juncea (L.). Plant Archives, 18 (2):1689-1694.
Vinayan M T and Govindarasu R. 2010. Relative efficiency of biparental mating, single capsule descent, selected bulk and random bulk selections in sesame. Electronic Journal of Plant Breeding, 1 (4): 666- 674.
Zeina A M. 2002. Using biparental mating system to produce new promising recombinations in cotton. Egyptian Journal of Agricultural Research, 80 (1): 325-340.