Indian Journal of Agricultural Research

  • Chief EditorV. Geethalakshmi

  • Print ISSN 0367-8245

  • Online ISSN 0976-058X

  • NAAS Rating 5.60

  • SJR 0.293

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

Research Article

Indian Journal of Agricultural Research, volume 54 issue 2 (april 2020) : 139-146

Induced Genetic Variability for Quantitative Traits in Pigeonpea

S.M. Sangle1,*
1Department of Botany, Rajaram College, Kolhapur-616 004, Maharashtra, India.
Cite article:- Sangle S.M. (2020). Induced Genetic Variability for Quantitative Traits in Pigeonpea . Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 54(2): 139-146. doi: 10.18805/IJARe.A-5210.

ABSTRACT

Seeds of two pigeonpea varieties namely BDN 708 and BSMR 853 were treated with Gamma rays, ethyl methane sulphonate (EMS) and Sodium azide (SA). The treated as well as control plant populations were screened to study the induced variability for quantitative characters. Positive shift in mean values for number of primary branches per plant was observed except 0.10% EMS in variety BSMR 853 and BDN 708 in M2 generation. The effect of all the mutagenic treatments on pods per plant revealed statistically significant negative as well as positive shifts in mean values in BSMR 853 in M2 and M3 generations.

INTRODUCTION

Mutation breeding has played significant role in improving legumes. The greatest challenge for legume researchers is to enhance the economic competitiveness of legumes by improving their intrinsic yield potential, their adaptation to niches available in various cropping systems, enhancing their end-use quality for diversified uses and reducing their susceptibility to a host of biotic/ abiotic stresses that prevent the full realization of yield potential and cause yield instability (Saxena, 2005). Rakesh Kumar et al., (2017) analysed ratio of gca/sca variance was less than unity which indicated the preponderance of non- additive gene action in pigeon pea.  Ramchander et al., (2015) investigated the effects of gamma rays on two quality rice varieties and were found linear reduction with increase in dose or concentration of mutagens. Singh and Sinha (2010) were used mutagen EMS to determine effectiveness in pre-soaking range using M1seedling traits in finger millet. The pigeonpea botanically known as Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp. (2n = 22) belongs to family Fabaceae. Pigeonpea is an important pulse crop of Asia and Africa. It is the fourth most important pulse crop in the world with almost all production coming from the developing countries. Pigeonpea is also commonly known as red gram, arhar, congo red, gandul, gunga pea and no eye pea.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Dry and healthy seeds of the two varieties of pigeonpea, namely BDN 708 and BSMR 853 were obtained from the Agricultural Research Station of Marathwada Agriculture University, Parbhani, M.S. India). Three hundred seeds were taken for each replicate from both the varieties for physical as well as chemical mutagenic treatment. The seeds were sealed in polythene bags and exposed to 05kR, 10kR and 15kR doses of Gamma rays were applied from Co60, 1000 curie source of the gamma irradiation unit of Government Institute of Science, Aurangabad. (M.S.), India. The dose rate was 24,578 rads per hour.
       
Healthy and uniform seeds of both the  pigeonpea varieties Amol (BDN-708) and Vaishali (BSMR- 853) were presoaked in distilled water for 6 hours. Such presoaked seeds were later immersed in the mutagenic solution for 5 hours with regular shaking. Seeds soaked in distilled water for 12 hours served as control. The different concentrations used for chemical mutagenic treatment were 0.05%, 0.10%, 0.15% for EMS and 0.010%, 0.015%, 0.020% for SA, respectively. Seeds of each treatment were sown in the field following randomized block design (RBD) with three replications along with control for raising the M1 generation. The seeds of all plants from each treatment in M1 generation were harvested separately. They were used for raising M2 generation on plant to a row basis. The seeds of the harvested pods from all treatment and mutants of M2 generation of pigeonpea were sown in the field as M3 generation.
       
The treated as well as control plant populations were screened to study the induced variability for quantitative characters. From each replication and treatment including control, plants were randomly selected for recording data on different quantitative characters in both the M2 and M3 generations.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Data obtained on induction of genetic variability in various yield contributing characters like days to flowering, number of primary branches, days to pod maturity, plant height, number of pods per plant, number of seeds per pod and hundred seed weight in both the varieties of pigeonpea was recorded and analysed statistically (Table 1, 2, 3 and 4).
 

Table1: Effect of different mutagens on various quantitative characters in M2 generation of pigeonpea variety BDN 708.


 

Table2: Effect of different mutagens on various quantitative characters in M2 generation of pigeonpea variety BSMR 853.


 

Table 3: Effect of different mutagens on various quantitative characters in M3 generation of pigeonpea variety BDN 708.


 

Table 4: Effect of different mutagens on various quantitative characters in M3 generation of pigeonpea variety BSMR 853.


 
A thorough statistical analysis was carried out by computing the mean, standard error and coefficient of variation using standard formulae. The shift in means and variance were also studied to assess the amount of induced variability due to mutagenic treatments. 
 
Days to flowering
 
 It was observed that in all the treated plants, the period for days to flowering was slightly earlier than the control. This feature was quite evident at the three mutagens in both the varieties in M2 and M3 generations. In M2 generation the maximum earliness in days to flowering could be seen at 05 kR dose in variety BDN 708 and at 0.020% SA treatment in variety BSMR 853. The negative shift in mean values was observed in majority of the treatments. In M3 generation, the maximum earliness in days to flowering could be seen at 0.010% SA and 0.10% EMS treatment in both the varieties BDN 708 and BSMR 853 of pigeonpea, respectively. Lower concentrations/doses of the mutagens induced early flowering in M2 generation in variety BDN 708. Similar results were also observed by Khan and Veeraswamy (1974), Brij and Pandya (1986) and Micke et al., (1990). EMS treatment was found to be most effective in inducing early flowering followed by Gamma rays. Result obtained was in confirmation with results of Rao et al., (1984), Biradar (2004), Shinde (2007) in pigeonpea. An early flowering feature has been obtained by Jana (1963) in black gram. Chowta and Dnyansagar (1974) reported delay in flowering in plants raised from irradiated and EMS treated seeds of Chlorophytum. The reports of delayed flowering with increasing concentrations of mutagenic treatments have been made by Bhatia and Swaminathan (1962), Chary (1983), Tyagi and Gupta (1991), Gaikwad (2002) and Savant (2008).
 
Number of primary branches per plant
 
Positive shift in mean values for number of primary branches per plant was observed except 0.10% EMS in BSMR 853 and BDN 708 in M2 generation. Mean value shifted in negative direction in M3 generation except at 05 kR and 15kR Gamma ray doses in variety BDN 708 and a maximum negative shift in mean values was recorded at 0.05% EMS treatment in variety BSMR 853 of pigeonpea.
       
In the present investigation, treatments of EMS and SA exerted inhibitory effect on branches per plant than lower treatments. The Gamma rays showed promotary effect on branches per plant. Similar results were obtained by Khan and Veeraswamy (1974) in pigeonpea and Tambe (2009) in soybean, Aher et al., (2006) and Chandirakala and Subbaraman (2010) reported high magnitude of heterosis for primary branches in pigeonpea.
 
Days to pod maturity
 
Days to maturity in control were 162.63 (BDN 708) and 164.37 (BSMR 853) in M2 generation. While in M3 generation, the values were 169.07 and 181.80 in BDN 708 and BSMR 853, respectively. In M2 generation all treatments have shown statistically significant negative shift in mean values in BSMR 853 except 0.015% concentration of SA. The 0.015% and 0.020 % concentration of SA treatment and 15 kR dose of Gamma rays showed positive shift in mean in variety BDN 708 in M2 generation. It was observed that, days taken to maturity were shifted in almost negative directions as compared to respective controls. Concentrations of EMS treatments revealed promotary effect on days taken to maturity. Similar significant induced variance for days taken to maturity was reported by Gregory (1961), Brock (1965), Paul and Bajpai (2000) in pigeonpea and Tambe (2009) in soybean. Early maturing feature was recorded by Azam et al., (2001) in rice, Ravikesavan et al., (2001) in pigeonpea.
 
Plant height
 
It was observed that all the mutagenic treatments employed in the present study succeeded in affecting the plant height in both the varieties of pigeonpea in M2 and M3 generations. A decline in mean height of plants could be seen in majority of the concentrations/doses of mutagens in both the varieties. The mean values in regard to plant height demonstrated shift towards negative direction in M2 generation in both the varieties except 0.015 % and 0.020% concentrations of SA and 15kR dose in variety BSMR 853. In M3 generation, the negative shift in mean was seen in all the mutagenic treatments in both the varieties except BSMR 853 at 15 kR dose of Gamma rays.
       
Mutagenic treatments employed in the present study succeeded in affecting the plant height in both varieties of pigeonpea in M2 and M3 generations.  Similar increase in mean plant height was reported by Barshile and Apparao (2006) in chickpea at 20mM concentration of Sodium azide. Aher et al., (2006), Phad et al., (2009) and Chandirakala and Subbaraman (2010) observed good amount of heterosis for this character in pigeonpea. Greater variance for the character was also recorded by Nadarajan et al., (1983) in M2 generation. Decrease in plant height as a result of mutagenic treatments was reported by several workers like Khan and Wani (2006) in mungbean, Bolbhat and Dhumal (2009) in  Horse gram Evans and Sparrow (1961) correlated the reduction in height with the chromosomal injury, genetic change or both.
 
Number of pods per plant
 
The number of pods per plant is a significant feature responsible for the high yielding character of plant. It looked evident from the pertinent observation that an increase in the mean number of pods per plant could be observed at all the treatments of SA and Gamma rays in M2 generation of variety BDN 708 except lower concentration of EMS and 15 kR dose of Gamma rays in variety BSMR 853. The highest positive shift in mean value was recorded at 0.015% SA treatment in BDN 708 in M2 generation.
       
The effect of all the mutagenic treatments on pods per plant revealed negative as well as positive shift in mean values in BSMR 853 in M2 and M3 generations in most of the mutagenic treatments. In the present study, EMS and Gamma ray treatments produced more number of pods per plant over control except their highest concentration /doses. Singh (1973) also noticed increased performance of number of pods in 5kR and 10kR doses. However, Chary and Bhalla (1988) and Nadarajan et al., (1983) recorded reduced number of pods per plant in M2 of treated seeds with mutagen. Decrease in heterosis was recorded earlier by Chandirakala and Subbaraman (2010). However, increased heterosis was observed by Aher et al., (2006). Similar decrease in pod number was also observed by Rao et al., (1983), Barshile et al., (2009), Chaudhary and Sharma (1984) and Singh and Yadav (1991). The observed decrease in number of pods in M2 population has been attributed to the increased pollen sterility (Shivraj et al., 1962). There was an increase in the number of pods per plant with some exceptions. This was supported by Hakande (1992) in winged bean and Savant (2008) in sesame.
 
Number of seeds per pod
 
It is evident from the pertinent observations that statistically significant increase in mean values for number of seeds per plant could be observed in all mutagenic treatments at lower concentration /dose in variety BDN 708 in M2 generation. 0.05 % concentration of EMS treatment recorded highest positive shift in mean in variety BDN 708 of pigeonpea in M2 generation. While variety BSMR 853 showed flexible trend in seeds per pod in M2 and M3 generations.
 
Hundred seeds weight
 
The treatments of EMS, SA and Gamma rays succeeded in inducing variability regarding weight of hundred seeds. The range of shift in mean values was mostly positive for all the mutagenic treatments in both the varieties in M2 generation. In control the mean of hundred seed weight was 11.98 gm and 11.56 gm in variety BDN 708 and BSMR-853 in M2 generation, while the same was 11.84 gm and 11.31 gm in variety BDN 708 and BSMR 853 in M3 generation, respectively. In M3 generation, all the mutagenic treatments have shown negative shift in mean values except for 0.15% EMS and 10 kR Gamma rays in variety BDN 708 and also in variety BSMR 853 with lower concentrations of SA, respectively.
       
Results obtained for number of seeds per pod and hundred seed weight indicated positive as well as negative shift in mean for all mutagenic treatments in both the varieties in M2 and M3 generations. Similar observations were also made by Chary (1983), Vandana and Dubey (1990), Rayyan (1995), Gunasekaran et al., (1998) and Shinde (2007). Increase in hundred seeds weight as a result of treatment with mutagen has been reported by Pawar et al., (1979), Singh (1973), Biradar (2004), while decrease in hundred seed weight was reported by Dahiya (1977).

CONCLUSION

Mutation breeding has become an alternative to conventional breeding with the sole objective of developing better cultivars of economically important crops. Virtually all economically important characters with which plant breeder has to deal are polygenic in nature and the genotype for these characters cannot be directly measured being highly modified by environment. These polygenic characters governed by a large number of independent genes are also called metric traits as they can be studied only through biometrical investigation. The inductions of micromutations in polygenic systems controlling the quantitative characters are important for crop improvement.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author expresses his deep sense of gratitude to Prof. V.S. Kothekar for guidance and constant support all through the research work.

REFERENCES


  1. Aher, G.U., Madrap, I.A., Tike, M.A. and Gore, D.R. (2006). Heterosis and inbreeding depression in pigeonpea. J. Maha Agric Univ. 31(1): 33-37.

  2. Azam, M.A. and Imtiaz Uddin, M.D. (2001). A maturing rice mutant released as a variety. Mutation Breeding Newsletter. 45: 9-10.

  3. Barshile, J.D, Auti, S.G, Dalve, S.C. and Apparao, B J. (2006). Mutagenic sensitivity studies in chickpea employing SA, EMS and gamma rays. Indian J. Pulses Res. 19(1): 43-    46.

  4. Barshile, J.D., Auti, S.G. and Apparao, BJ. (2009). Genetic enhancement of chickpea through induced mutagenesis. J. Food Leg. 22 (1): 26-29.

  5. Bhatia, C.R. and Swaminathan, M. S. (1962). Induced polygenic variability in bread wheat and its bearing on selection procedure. Z. Pflanzenzuecht. 43: 317-326.

  6. Biradar, A.B. (2004). Gamma ray and Ethyl methanesulphonate (EMS) induced mutation studies in pigeonpea [Cajanus Cajan (L) Millsp.], MPKV Rahuri, Ph.D Thesis. 

  7. Bolbhat, S.N. and Dhumal, K.N. (2009). Induced macromutations in horsegram [Macrotyloma uniflorum (Lam.) Verde.]. Legume Res. 32(4): 278-281.

  8. Brij, V.S. and Pandya, B.P. (1986). Ultra-early semidwarf variant in pigeonpea. Current Sci. 55(9): 466-467. 

  9. Brock, R.D. (1965). Induced mutations affecting quantitative characters. Rad Bot. 51: 451-467.

  10. Chandirakala, R. and Subbaraman, N. (2010). Character association and path analysis for yield attributes in full sib progenies in Pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L) Millsp.]. Electronic J. Plant Breeding. 1(4): 824-827. 

  11. Chary, S.N. (1983). Mutagenic studies in pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan L Millsp.), Ph.D. Thesis, Osmania University, Hyderabad.

  12. Chary, S.N. and Bhalla, J.K. (1988). Mutagenic effectiveness and efficiency of gamma rays and EMS on pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L) Millsp]. J. Cytol. Genet. 23: 174-182.

  13. Chaudhary, R.K. and Sharma, G.R. (1984). Effect of gamma irradiation on some quantitative characters in pigeonpea. International Pigeonpea Newsletter. 3: 17-19. 

  14. Chowta, C.D. and Dnyansagar, V.R. (1974). Abnormalities induced in flowering and floral parts by gamma rays and EMS in Chlorophytum tuberosum. Baker M.V. R. Patrika. 9: 71-76.

  15. Dahiya, B.S., Brar, J.S. and Bhullar, B.S. (1977). Inheritance of protein content and its correlation with grain yield in pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.]. Qualitas Plantarurm /Plant Foods for Human Nutrition. 27: 327-334.

  16. Evans, H.J. and Sparrow, A.H. (1961). Nuclear factors affecting radio sensitivity II. Dependence on nuclear and chromosome structure and organization. Brookhaven Symp, In Biol. 14: 101-127.

  17. Gaikwad, N.B. (2002). Genetic improvement of lentil through mutagenesis, Ph.D. Thesis, Dr, Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad.

  18. Gregory W.C. (1961). Efficiency of mutation breeding. In: Mutations and plant breeding. NAS-NRC. 891: 461-485.

  19. Gunasekaran, M., Selvaraj, U. and Raveendran, T.S. (1998). Induced polygenic mutations in cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.]. South Indian Wort. 46(1-2): 13-17.

  20. Hakande, T.P. (1992). Cytogenetical studies in Psophocarpus tetragonolobus (L) DC., Ph.D Thesis, Marathwada University.

  21. Jana, M.K. (1963): X- ray induced mutations of Phaseolus mungo L. II. Chlorophyll mutation Caryologia. 16: 685-692.

  22. Khan Samiullah and Wani Mohd Rafiq, (2006). MMS and SA induced genetic variability for quantitative traits in mungbean. Indian J. Pulses Res. 19(1): 50-52. 

  23. Khan, W.M.A. and Veeraswamy, R. (1974). Mutations induced in red gram [Cajanus cajan (L) Millsp.] By Gamma radiation and EMS. Racf. Bof. 14: 237-242.

  24. Micke, A., Domini, B. and Maluszyski, M. (1990). Induced mutation f or crop improvement. Mutation breeding Review. 7: 41. 

  25. Nadarajan, N., Ramalingam, R.S. and Sivasamy, N. (1983). Induced variation in quantitative characters in red gram. Madras Agric. J. 70(4): 219-222.

  26. Paul, A. and Bajpai, G.C. (2000). Selection indices for yield in determinate pigeonpea. Legume Res. 23(1): 52-54. 

  27. Pawar, S.E., Thakare, R.G. and Joshua, D.C. (1979). Early maturing bold seeded mutant in pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.]. Curr Sci. 48(14): 643-645. 

  28. Phad, D.S, Madrap, L.A. and Dalvi, V.A. (2009). Heterosis in relation to combining ability effects and phenotypic stability in pigeonpea. J. of Food Legumes. 22(1): 59-61.

  29. Rakesh Kumar Maida, Patel, M.P., Chandrabhan Ahirwar and Patel A.M. (2017): Estimation of combining ability and gene action for yield and its components in pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millspaugh]. Indian Journal of Agricultural  Research. 51: 550-555.

  30. Ramchander, S., Ushakumari R. and Arumugam Pillai, M. (2015). Lethal dose fixation and sensitivity of rice varieties to gamma radiation. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. (49): 24-31.

  31. Rao, D.M., Reddy, T.P. and Manohar, R.D. (1983). Response of pigeonpea cultivars to mutagens. International Pigeonpea Newsletter. 2:15-16.

  32. Rao, D.M., Reddy, T.P. and Manohar, R.D. (1984). Induction of mutations in Pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan L.). Mutation Breeding Newsletter. 24: 8. 

  33. Ravikesavan, R., Kalaimagal, T. and Rathana Swamy, R. (2001). An extra early mutant of pigeon pea. Mut. Breed. Newsl. 45: 23.

  34. Rayyan Asra, (1995). Mutagenesis and tissue culture studies in Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper., Ph. D. Thesis, Osmania University, Hyderabad.

  35. Savant, K.D. (2008). Genetic improvement of sesame (Sesamum indicum L.) through induced mutation. Ph.D. Thesis, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad.

  36. Shinde, M.D. (2007). Assessment of Variability in M3 Lines of Pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millisp.], M.P.K.V. Rahuri. M.Sc. Agri. Thesis. 

  37. Shivraj, A.N., Ramana, G.P., Rao, B.V. and Razvi, H.A. (1962). Effects of fast neutrons and gamma rays on groundnut. Ind. Oilseeds J. 6: 24-30. 

  38. Singh, B.B. (1973). Effect of gamma-irradiation on growth and yield of pigeonpea. Haryana Journal of Horticultural Science. 2(3-4): 83-87.

  39. Singh, B. and Sinha, S.K. (2010). Enhanced sensitivity to mutagen by pre-soaking – a taxometric study uses M1 seedlings traits in finger millet. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. (44): 38- 42.

  40. Singh, V.P. and Yadav, D.S. (1991). Induced mutations for qualitative and quantitative traits in green gram [Vigna radiata L. Wilczek] cv. T 44. Indian J. Genet. 45: 1-6.

  41. Tambe, A.B. (2009). Induction of genetic variability in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merrill.] for yield contributing traits. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pune.

  42. Tyagi, B.S. and Gupta, P.K. (1991). Induced micro-mutations in lentil. Lens: 3-7.

  43. Vandana and Dubey, O.K. (1990). Effect of EMS and DES on germination, growth, fertility and yield of lentil var. K-85 (Macrosperma). Lens Newsletter. 17(2): 8-12. 
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)