Agricultural Science Digest

  • Chief EditorArvind kumar

  • Print ISSN 0253-150X

  • Online ISSN 0976-0547

  • NAAS Rating 5.52

  • SJR 0.156

Frequency :
Bi-monthly (February, April, June, August, October and December)
Indexing Services :
BIOSIS Preview, Biological Abstracts, Elsevier (Scopus and Embase), AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Submit

Agricultural Science Digest, volume 30 issue 4 (december 2010) :

CORRELATION AND PATH CO-EFFICIENT ANALYSIS IN CASTOR (RICINUS COMMUNIS L.) OVER ENVIRONMENTS

K.K. Dhedhi, Y.H. Ghelani, H.J. Joshi, C.J. Dangaria
1Pearl millet Research Station, Junagadh Agricultural University, Jamnagar - 361 006, India

  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Dhedhi K.K., Ghelani Y.H., Joshi H.J., Dangaria C.J. (2024). CORRELATION AND PATH CO-EFFICIENT ANALYSIS IN CASTOR (RICINUS COMMUNIS L.) OVER ENVIRONMENTS. Agricultural Science Digest. 30(4): . doi: .

ABSTRACT

Twenty nine genotypes were evaluated in randomized block design with three replications
to study the correlation and path co-efficient analysis for ten quantitative characters in castor
(Ricinus communis L.) under irrigated conditions during Kharif seasons of 2007-08 and 2008-
09. Correlation studies revealed that seed yield was positive and significantly genotypic as well
as phenotypic associated with leaf length, capsule length, length of primary spike and 100-seed
weight. Path co-efficient analysis showed that leaf length, length of primary spike, number of
nodes and days to 50 % flowering were the most important characters manifesting large direct
effects on seed yield per plant. It is, therefore, suggested that simultaneous selection for length
of primary spike and leaf length would result in improvement of seed yield by phenotypic selection
in castor.

REFERENCES

  1. Dewey, D.R. and Lu, K.H. (1959). Agron. J., 51: 515-518.
  2. Falconer, D.S. (1964). ‘Introduction to Quantitative Genetics’ Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, pp. 312-318.
  3. Khorgade, P.W. et al. (1994). Agril. Sci. Digest., 14: 60-62.
  4. Lakshmamma, P. et al. (2005). Natnl. J. Pl. Improv., 7(2): 122-126.
  5. Manivel, P. and Manivannan, N. (2006). J. Oilseeds Res., 23(1): 89-92.
  6. Patel, P.S. and Jaimini, S.N. (1988). Indian J. Agric. Sci., 58: 394-396.
  7. Singh, S.B. et al. (1981). Madras Agril. J., 68: 688-689.
  8. Yadav, Y.P. et al. (2004). J. Oilseeds Res., 21(2): 346-348
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)