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 24 issue 2 (june 2004) : 87 - 90

HETEROSIS AND INBREEDING DEPREsSION IN RACIAL DERIVATIVES OF GOSSYPJUMHIRSUTUM L. FOR BOLLWORM (HEUCOVERPA ARMIGERA HUBNffi) RESISTANCE

K. Thangar::lj*, T.S. Raveendra., n .and K.S. Jehangir
1Centre for Plant Breeding and Genetics Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coirnbatore - 641003, India

  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Thangar::lj* K., Raveendra. T.S., Jehangir K.S. .and n (2024). HETEROSIS AND INBREEDING DEPREsSION IN RACIAL DERIVATIVES OF GOSSYPJUMHIRSUTUM L. FOR BOLLWORM (HEUCOVERPA ARMIGERA HUBNffi) RESISTANCE. Agricultural Science Digest. 24(2): 87 - 90. doi: .

ABSTRACT

Heterosis over mid parent and better parent in F 1 and inbreeding depression in the F 2s were studied for number of sympodia per plant, number of bolls per plant, seed cotton yield per plant, ginning outturn, boll damage and locule damage. The relative heterosis and heterobeltiosis were significant for seed cotton yield in all the six crosses. The relative heterosis was negatively significant for boll damage and locule damage confirming bollworm damage in the F 1, but compared to the better parent the bollworm damage was high in F 1. The inbreeding depression was positive for boll damage and locule damage in all the six crosses showing less bollworm damage in F 2 generation and it will be because of the segregation of resistant genes.

KEYWORDS

    REFERENCES

    1. Bhatade, S.S and Rajeswar, S. ;)94). Madras Agric. J., 81: 34-35.
    2. Duhoon, S.S. et al. (1983VJ. Indian Soc. Cotto Improv., 8: 19-27.
    3. Gunaseelan, T. and Krishnaswami, R. (1988). J. Indian Soc. Cotto Improv., 13: 6-15.
    4. Gururajan, KN. and Basu, AK (1992). Crop Improv., 14: 14"17.
    5. Saeed, A. etal. (1994). PakistanJ. Sci. Ipd. Res" 37: 153-155.
    6. Siddiqui, M.A. (1993). J. MaharastraAgric.Univ., 18: 403-405.
    7. Sundaramurthy, v.T. and Gururajan, KN. (1993). Crop Improv.Soc. India, 14: 156-157.
    Reviewed By

    Download Article
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)