4.2 Article

STUDY OF SOME DIRECT AND IN-DIRECT SELECTION INDICES IN B. campestris L.

期刊

PAKISTAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
卷 55, 期 2, 页码 287-293

出版社

UNIV AGRICULTURE, FAC VETERINARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.21162/PAKJAS/18.6656

关键词

Oilseed; canola; genetic variability; heritability; genetic advance; path analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present study was conducted to estimate the selection indices directly and indirectly involved in yield of B. campesfris. Parent lines, 36 F-1 hybrids and commercial hybrids/varieties were sown in the field in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Analysis of variance revealed remarkable differences among genotypes. Number of siliquae per plant had the highest heritability followed by days to maturity. Higher genetic advance was recorded for the 100 seed weight and plant height. Glucosinolates had the highest heritability and erucic acid had the highest genetic advance as percent of mean. Correlation studies showed that genotypic associations were higher than phenotypic associations. Plant height, green biomass, number of siliquae, days to 50% siliquae formation, number of seed per siliqua had considerable relationship with seed yield. Oil content had positive significant correlation with total protein contents. Protein contents had considerable positive correlation with glucosinolate and erucic acid. Glucosinolate had significant positive correlation with erucic acid. Path coefficient analysis showed that harvest index, days to flowering initiation, days to maturity, secondary branches, number of siliquae per plant and seed per siliqua had direct effect on seed yield. Protein content and oleic had direct positive effect on oil content. Therefore, these direct and indirect indices i.e. plant height, green biomass, harvest index, secondary branches, number of siliquae, days to 50% siliqua formation and number of seeds per siliqua needs emphasis for improvement of seed yield while protein content and oleic acid for oil content.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据