Loading...

Stability for Grain Yield using AMMI Bi Plot and Disease Reaction Studies in Pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.]

DOI: 10.18805/LR-4259    | Article Id: LR-4259 | Page : 1413-1418
Citation :- Stability for Grain Yield using AMMI Bi Plot and Disease Reaction Studies in Pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.].Legume Research.2021.(44):1413-1418
S. Muniswamy, Praveen Kumar, P. Kuchanur, L.N. Yogesh, T. Annaray, Sidramappa, Sunil Kulkarni, D.M. Mahalinga muniswamygpb@gmail.com
Address : Zonal Agricultural Research Station, Aland Road, Kalaburagi-585 101, Karnataka, India.
Submitted Date : 14-10-2019
Accepted Date : 20-12-2019

Abstract

The genetic material for finding the genotype × environment (G × E) interaction comprised of 15 advanced genotypes, which were tested in five environments, during kharif-2018. In totalling to these genotypes used for stability, four more genotypes (total 19 genotypes) were used for studying the disease reaction to Fusarium wilt (FW) and Sterility Mosaic Disease (SMD) in respective sick plots. The AMMI (Additive main effects and multiplicative interaction) analysis of variance for grain yield publicized highly significant (p<0.01) for environments, G × E interaction, PCA I and PCA II significant (p<0.05) for genotypes. First principal component axis (PCA 1) of the interaction captured 60 % of the interaction sum of squares. In AMMI analysis AMMI 1 bi plot showed that the genotypes viz., GRG-152 (G1), GRG-811 (G15), KRG-244 (G9), AGL-1603-2 (G12) and TS-3R (G14) recorded higher average mean yield with high main (additive) effects coupled with positive IPCA 1 score. While the genotypes KRG-224 (G5) though showed highest yield, but recorded negative IPCA 1 score demonstrating its environment sensitivity. Environments, such as Bheemarayana gudi (E2), Hagari (E4) and Malnoor (E5) could be regarded as more stable site for high yielding pigeonpea genotypes than other locations for grain yield as indicated IPCA scores. The disease screening revealed that the genotype AGL-1603-2 (G12) was resistant to both FW, SMD attached with high yield as indicated by its per se performance and the genotype GPT-1 showed resistance to both FW, SMD. Two genotypes viz., GRG-152 (G1) and GRG-811 (G15) showed resistance to FW and moderate resistance to SMD and possess high yielding as indicated by their per se performance. Hence, these genotypes could be used unswervingly as a varieties or choice of parents for hybridization programme.

Keywords

AMMI analysis Fusarium wilt Genotypes Stability Sterility mosaic disease

References

  1. Anonymous (2017). Improved Agronomic Practices, UAS Dharwad and UAS Raichur, pp 100-112.
  2. Anonymous (2019). Project Coordinator’s Report, AICRP on Pigeonpea.
  3. Akter A, Jamil Hassan m, Umma Kusum M, ISalam MR, Hossain K and Rahman MM, (2014). AMMI Biplot analysis for stability of grain yield in hybrid rice (Oryza sativa L.) J Rice Res. 2: 126
  4. FAOSTAT. (2017). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome, Italy. http://faostat.fao.org/database.
  5. Muniswamy S., Lokesha, R. Yamanura, Ramesh and Diwan, J.R. (2017). Stability for disease, genotype x environment interaction for yield and its components in pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.], Legume Res. 40: 624-629.
  6. Niranjana Kumara, Dharmaraj, P. S., Kuchnur, P.H., Muniswamy, S., Yamanura, Diwan, J.R. and Amaresh, Y.S. (2014). Stability analysis for yield and its attributing traits in advanced genotypes of pigeonpea, Legume Res. 39: 194-197. 
  7. Prashanti, L., Bhasker Reddy, B. V., Rekha Rani, K. and Haranath, N. P. (2009). Molecular marker for screening Fusarium wilt resistance in pigeonpea, Legume Res. 32:19-24. 
  8. Reddy, M. V., Raju, T. N. and Nene, J. M., (1998). Diseases of Pigeonpea: The pathology of food and pasture legumes [(eds. Allen D J and Lenne J M)], CAB International, Wallingford, UK. pp. 517-558.
  9. Sawargaonkar, S. L., Saxena, K. B., Madrap, I. A. and Rathore, A. (2011). Stability analysis of yield and related traits in pigeonpea hybrids. J. Food Legume. 24(3): 184-193.
  10. Sharma, M., Rathore, A., Mangala, U. N., Ghosh, R., Sharma, S., Upadhyay, H. D. and Pande, S. (2012). New sources of resistance to Fusarium wilt and sterility mosaic disease in a mini-core collection pigeonpea germplasm. European Journal of Plant Pathology. 133: 707-714. 
  11. Sharma, M., Telangre, R and Pande, S. (2013). Identification and validation of resistance to Fusarium wilt and sterility mosaic disease in pigeonpea. Indian J. of Plant Protection. 41: 141-146. 
  12. Sharma, S., and Upadhyaya, H. D. (2016). Pre-breeding to expand primary Gene pool through introgression of genes from wild Cajanus species for pigeonpea improvement. Legume Perspectives. 11: 17–20.
  13. Sivapalan S, Brien LO, Ferrana GO, Hollamby GL, Barelay I, et al. (2000). An adaption analysis of Australian and CIMMYT/ ICARDA wheat germplasm in Australian production environments. Australian J. of Agric. Res. 51: 903-915.
  14. Singh, I. P., Vishwadhar and Dua, R.P., (2003). Inheritance of resistance to sterility mosaic disease in pigeonpea [Cajanus cajana (L.) Millsp.]. Indian J. of Agric. Sci. 73: 414-417.
  15. Singh, J., Kumar, A., Abdul Fiyaz, R. and Singh, M.K. (2018). Stability analysis of pigeon pea genotypes by deployment of AMMI model under rainfed environment. Legume Research. 41: 182-188.
  16. Thanki, H.P. Sawargaonkar, S. L. and Hudge, B. V. (2010). Genotype x environment interaction for biometrical traits in pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.] under varying spacing. Electronic J. Plant Breed. 1(4): 925-928.
  17. Vargas, M., Crossa, I., Eeuwijk, F. V., Sayre, K. D. and Reynolds, M. P. (2001). Interpreting treatment x environment interaction in agronomy trials. Agron. J. 93: 949-960.
  18. Zobel RW, Wright MJ, Gauch HG (1988) Statistical analysis of a yield trial. Agronomy J. 80: 388-393. 

Global Footprints