Estimation of Heterosis, Combining Ability and Some Genetic Parameters in Sweet Pepper

Abstract

Four pure lines of pepper developing locally namely (S-1004, L-1008, K-1017 and E-1001) were used in a full diallel crossing program to evaluate the performance of those parents and their crosses, to estimate combining ability and genetic parameters for agronomic, fruit yield and its components traits. Crosses among parents were carried out in plastic house in fall season of 2012 using full diallel cross mating to produce 16 hybrids the parents, F1s and reciprocals hybrids plus hybrid check were sown in plastic house in fall season of 2013 using a R C B D design with four replicates. Data were recorded for plant height, branches number per plant, fruit number per plant, fruit diameter, fruit weight, fruit length and fruit yield per plant. The obtained results showed significant differences among the different genotypes for all traits under investigation. The hybrid (1×4) and the reciprocal hybrid (4×2) produced higher fruit number (73.90, 63.40) and fruit yield per plant (4.06, 3.28 Kg) while, the hybrid (1×3) and reciprocal hybrid (3×2) gave higher fruit length 8.02 cm. Positive and negative heterosis were found among the F1,s and reciprocals. The hybrid (1×4) and reciprocal (4×2) produced higher heterosis in fruit number (88.85, 62.02%) and fruit yield per plant (79.64, 53.99%) respectively. Significant differences were revealed in general and specific combining abilities for all studied traits. Suggesting the presence of both additive and Non-additive gene effects in the inheritance of the various studied traits. The ratio of σ²gca to σ²sca was less than unity for all studied traits, expect for fruit weight, which showed pre dominant role of non-additive gene action in the inheritance. Estimates of GCA effects showed that the best combiner parents were found to these of P1 for plant height, fruit diameter and fruit weight, while P4 for branches number, fruit number, and for fruit yield per plant, and P2 for plant height and P3 for fruit length. Estimates of SCA effects showed that the hybrid 1×2 reflected the highest value in fruit diameter (0.56) and fruit weight (1.35) and the hybrid 1×4 in fruit number (10.02) and fruit yield per plant (0.54) and 2×3 in branches number per plant (0.81) and fruit weight (1.21), and 3×4 in plant height (19.30) and fruit length (0.38). Estimates of RCA effects showed that the reciprocal hybrid 3×1 was the best for fruit weight (8.09), while the reciprocal hybrid 4×1 was the best for branches number per plant (1), fruit number (16.13), fruit length (0.55) and for fruit yield per plant (0.91) whereas 3×2 was the best for plant height branches number per plants (5.37) and fruit diameter, and 4×3 was the best for fruit number (6.03) and for fruit diameter (0.30). The values of σ² D and σ² D_r were more than that (σ² A) for all studied traits expect for fruit weight and fruit yield per plant, which were less than those for fruit diameter, fruit weight and fruit yield per plant, and this reflects the exceeded one for the value of average dominance degree for all studied traits in bo...

GENE ACTION, GENETIC COMPONENTS AND GENETIC ADVANCEIN SWEET PEPPER (Capsicum annuum L.)

“…While, it was low (0-30%) in other traits (plant height, leaf area, fruits number in total yield, fruit length, fruit diameter, average fruit weight and locales number) well be enhancement through hybridization. Similar finding were high in vegetative traits (Marame et al, 2009;Hasanuzzaman et al, 2012;Chaudhary et al, 2013;Devi, 2014;Adday, 2016;Rohini et al, 2017, andAmer, 2018). Moreover, narrow sense heritability found to be high by (Soodet al, 2007;Marameet al, 2009;Hasanuzzaman et al, 2012, andAmer, 2018) for plant height and leaf area.…”

“…These results confirmed with (Doshi, 2003, Farag, 2003Metwally et al, 2003;Khalil et al, 2004;Patel et al, 2004;Metwally et al, 2005;Singh and Choudhary, 2005;Sood and Kaul, 2006;Ibrahim, 2007;Fekaduet al, 2009;Chaudhary et al, 2013;Hatem, 2014, andAmer, 2018). While, disconfirmed with (Ahmed et al, 2003;Farag, 2003;Metwally et al, 2003;Nandadevi, 2003a;Ibrahim, 2007;Chaudhary et al, 2013;Adday, 2016;Gandadharaet al, 2016, andHerath et al, 2017). Indicating there is a huge variability in pepper germ plasma were worked on in these several studying's.…”

“…Regarding the inheritance of early and total yield traits, some studies revealed that both of additive and non-additive effects were important for early and total yield traits which revealed that the additive gene effects were more important than non-additive ones in the inheritance of this trait (Metwally et al, 2003;Khalil et al, 2004;Patel et al, 2004;Chaudhary et al, 2013;Hatem, 2014, andMahmoud, 2014 in number of fruits -1 , and Amer, 2018). On contrary, many researchers reported that non-additive effects were important in the inheritance of this trait (Ahmed et al, 2003;Nandadevi, 2003a;Ibrahim, 2007;Devi, 2014;Nascimento et al, 2014;Jindal et al, 2015;Adday, 2016;Gandadhara et al, 2016 andHerath et al, 2017). Moreover, Hasanuzzaman and Golam (2011) found that the additive, dominance and epistasis were more important for fruit number and total yieldplant -1 .…”

“…However, the additive component was higher than non-additive one that reported by Doshi (2003); Singh and Choudhary (2005); Sood and Kaul (2006); Ibrahim (2007); Devi (2014) and Amer (2018). While, non-additive gene action was more important than additive gene action (Ahmed et al, 2003;Chaudhary et al, 2013;Adday, 2016;Gandadharaet al, 2016;Herathet al, 2017). Furthermore, the epistasis gene effects played the important role in the control of plant height (Joshi, 1990),and inter-allelic interactions in branches number (Rohini et al,2017).…”

“…Moreover, (Ahmed et al, 2003;Nandadevi, 2003a andGeleta andLabuschagne, 2006) reported that both of additive and non-additive are important in inheritance in such traits. While, the non-additive effect was involved in the inheritance of fruit length (Patel et al, 2004, Singh andChoudhary, 2005;Chaudhary et al, 2013;Khalil and Hatem, 2014;Devi, 2014;Nascimento et al, 2014;Jindal et al, 2015;Adday, 2016;Herath et al 2017), fruit diameter (Farag, 2003, Adday, 2016and Herath et al 2017, pericarp thickness and locales number (Gandadhara et al, 2016;Herath et al 2017 andAmer, 2018), total soluble solids (Geleta andLabuschagne, 2006 andIbrahim, 2007); locales number, average fruit weight and pericarp thickness (Gandadhara et al, 2016 andHerath et al 2017).…”