Legume Research

  • Chief EditorJ. S. Sandhu

  • Print ISSN 0250-5371

  • Online ISSN 0976-0571

  • NAAS Rating 6.80

  • SJR 0.391

  • Impact Factor 0.8 (2023)

Frequency :
Monthly (January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November 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
Legume Research, volume 29 issue 1 (march 2006) : 61 - 64

HETEROSIS IN RELATION TO GENE ACTION FOR SEED YIELD AND ITS COMPONENTS IN LENTIL

I.P. Singh, J.D. Singh
1Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding (Legumes), C.S. Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur - 208 002, India
  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Singh I.P., Singh J.D. (2024). HETEROSIS IN RELATION TO GENE ACTION FOR SEED YIELD AND ITS COMPONENTS IN LENTIL. Legume Research. 29(1): 61 - 64. doi: .
Heterosis over better parent for seed yield and its component traits were studied in 28 crosses derived from a diallel mating involving 8 diverse parents of lentil. For seed yield heterosis ranged from −1.73 to 48.35 (%). Twenty two crosses had positive and significant heterosis for seed yield, out of them 9 crosses viz., DPL 62 × K 75, PL 4 × K 75, B 18 × Lens 830, PL 4 × B 18, B 18 × K 75, PL 4 × DPL 62, DPL 62 × L9–12, DPL 62 × B 18 and K 75 × Lens 830 were the best hybrids having high heterosis for seed yield/plant, plant height and pods/plant. It was revealed that high heterosis was attributed due to luxuriant plant growth coupled with high frequency of pods seed. Considering heterosis, inbreeding depression, sca effect of cross and gca effect of parents involve in crosses indicated that grossly non additive gene action played major role for expression of high heterosis for seed yield.
    1. Chauhan, M.P. and Singh, I.S. (1995). Legume Res., 18: 185-192.
    2. Chauhan, M.P. and Singh, I.S. (2000). Legume Res., 23: 227-231.
    3. Deshmukh, R.B. and Bhapkar, D.G. (1982). Indian J. Genet., 42: 208-212.
    4. Griffing, B. (1956). Aust. J. Bio. Sci., 9: 463-493.
    5. Jinks, J.L. and Jones, R.M. (1958). Genetics, 43: 223-234.
    6. Joseph, J. and Kumar, S. (2000). Legume Res., 23: 118-121.
    7. Kumar, Ajay et al. (1994). Lens News Let., 21(2): 9-12.
    8. Namdeo, S.L. et al. (1996). Lens News Let., 23: 29-31.
    9. Sharma, S.K. and Chahota, R.K. (2000). Indian J. Genet., 60(2): 243-245.
    10. Singh, K.B. (1971). Proc. V All India Pulse Conf. Hisar, pp. 123.
    11. Singh, T.P. and Singh, K.B. (1989). Indian J. Agric. Sci., 45: 259-263.

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)