volume 40 issue 1 (march 2006) : 68 - 71

CHARACTER ASSOCIATION IN RELATION TO INFESTATION BY SHOOT AND FRUIT BORER (LEUCINODES ORBONALIS GUEN.) IN BRINJAL (SOLANUM MELOENGENA L.)

A
A.K. Senapati
B
B.K. Senapati*
1Regional Research Station, Coastal Saline zone, (B.C.K.V.), Kakdwip, 24 Parganas (South), West Bengal - 743 347, India
  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Senapati A.K., Senapati* B.K. (2025). CHARACTER ASSOCIATION IN RELATION TO INFESTATION BY SHOOT AND FRUIT BORER (LEUCINODES ORBONALIS GUEN.) IN BRINJAL (SOLANUM MELOENGENA L.). Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 40(1): 68 - 71. doi: .
Genotypic correlation coefficients and path coefficients among fruit yield and other elevan
yield related traits in brinjal were estimated from 15 diverse genotypes evaluated during two
consecutive years. Fruit yield was significantly and positively correlated with fruit number and
ratio of length of peripheral seed ring. It had negative correlation with fruit diameter and
mesocarp thickness. Mesocarp thickness also showed positive association with infested shoot
percentage, fruit diametere and ratio of length of seedless area while it was negatively associated
with fruit number, fruit length and ratio of length of peripheral seedling area. Percentage of
infested fruit yield was highly positively correlated with infested fruit number percentage. Path
analysis indicated that mesocarp thickness had the maximum influence on fruit yield followed by
fruit diameter, fruit number and ratio of length of peripheral seedring, suggesting that the
improvement in fruit yield could be efficient if the selection is based on these component
characters.
    1. Dewey, D.R. and Lu, K.H. (1959). Agron. J., 51: 515-518.
    2. Johnson, H.W. et al. (1955). Agron. J., 47: 477-483.
    3. Krishnaiah and Vijay (1975). Indian J. Hort., 32: 84-86.
    4. Lal, O.P. et al. (1976). Veg. Sci., 3: 111-116.
    5. Malik, A.S. et al. (1986). H.A.U. J. Res., 16: 259-265.
    6. Panda, N. et al. (1971). Indian J. Agric. Sci., 41: 597-601.
    7. Rajput, J.C. et al. (1996). Ann. Orgnic. Res., 17: 235-240.
    8. Sharma, N.K. et al. (1985). Haryana J. Hort. Sci., 14: 114-117
    volume 40 issue 1 (march 2006) : 68 - 71

    CHARACTER ASSOCIATION IN RELATION TO INFESTATION BY SHOOT AND FRUIT BORER (LEUCINODES ORBONALIS GUEN.) IN BRINJAL (SOLANUM MELOENGENA L.)

    A
    A.K. Senapati
    B
    B.K. Senapati*
    1Regional Research Station, Coastal Saline zone, (B.C.K.V.), Kakdwip, 24 Parganas (South), West Bengal - 743 347, India
    • Submitted|

    • First Online |

    • doi

    Cite article:- Senapati A.K., Senapati* B.K. (2025). CHARACTER ASSOCIATION IN RELATION TO INFESTATION BY SHOOT AND FRUIT BORER (LEUCINODES ORBONALIS GUEN.) IN BRINJAL (SOLANUM MELOENGENA L.). Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 40(1): 68 - 71. doi: .
    Genotypic correlation coefficients and path coefficients among fruit yield and other elevan
    yield related traits in brinjal were estimated from 15 diverse genotypes evaluated during two
    consecutive years. Fruit yield was significantly and positively correlated with fruit number and
    ratio of length of peripheral seed ring. It had negative correlation with fruit diameter and
    mesocarp thickness. Mesocarp thickness also showed positive association with infested shoot
    percentage, fruit diametere and ratio of length of seedless area while it was negatively associated
    with fruit number, fruit length and ratio of length of peripheral seedling area. Percentage of
    infested fruit yield was highly positively correlated with infested fruit number percentage. Path
    analysis indicated that mesocarp thickness had the maximum influence on fruit yield followed by
    fruit diameter, fruit number and ratio of length of peripheral seedring, suggesting that the
    improvement in fruit yield could be efficient if the selection is based on these component
    characters.
      1. Dewey, D.R. and Lu, K.H. (1959). Agron. J., 51: 515-518.
      2. Johnson, H.W. et al. (1955). Agron. J., 47: 477-483.
      3. Krishnaiah and Vijay (1975). Indian J. Hort., 32: 84-86.
      4. Lal, O.P. et al. (1976). Veg. Sci., 3: 111-116.
      5. Malik, A.S. et al. (1986). H.A.U. J. Res., 16: 259-265.
      6. Panda, N. et al. (1971). Indian J. Agric. Sci., 41: 597-601.
      7. Rajput, J.C. et al. (1996). Ann. Orgnic. Res., 17: 235-240.
      8. Sharma, N.K. et al. (1985). Haryana J. Hort. Sci., 14: 114-117
      In this Article
      Published In
      Indian Journal of Agricultural Research

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)