The scaling test was found to be significant for plant height in all the crosses except EC-693369 ´ ML-818, indicating the presence of non-allelic interactions (Table 2). In all the crosses the presence of both additive and dominance gene action was observed, except in the cross ML-1299 × EC-693376 and OUM-11-5 × NM-94.
Singh et al., (2007) also reported that plant height was under the control of both additive and dominance gene effects. Duplicate epistasis was present in three crosses EC-693369 × NM-94, ML-1299 × EC-693376 and LGG-460 × EC-693376 whereas complementary epistasis was reported in the cross OUM-11-5 × ML-818.
Aher and Dahat (1999) also observed the duplicate and complementary type of epistasis for plant height. Among the interaction components, additive × additive (i) effects was negative and significant for three crosses (Table 3). Hence, selection for the character may be deferred to later generations when desirable recombinants become available
(Inderjit et al., 2006) and
Patel et al., 2012).
The significance of both the scales for primary branches per plant in two crosses (Table 2) confirmed presence of both dominance × dominance (l) as well as additive × additive (i) type of gene interaction. Significant and negative additive gene effects was observed in these crosses while the crosses LGG-460 × EC-693376 and OUM-11-5 × ML-818 recorded significant and positive dominance gene effect. This shows the complex nature of inheritance of this trait (
Gawande and Patil, 2007 and
Singh et al., 2007).
In case of clusters per plant, presence of epistatic interaction was observed in all the crosses except two
viz. OUM-11-5 × NM-94 and OUM-11-5 × ML-818. Significant additive effect was found in four crosses while significant dominance effect was reported only for the cross EC-693369 × NM-94 (Table 3). Different sign for h and l referred to the presence of duplicate epistasis in EC-693369 × NM-94, which was similar to the results of
Malik and Singh (1983). Importance of additive effect for this trait in mungbean has also been reported earlier
(Barad et al., 2008, Manivannan, 2002 and
Ram, 1997). Also the dominance gene action for this character has been recorded earlier by many researchers.
The presence of inter allelic interactions for pods per plant was observed in four crosses (Table 3). Significant additive gene effects were reported in crosses OUM-11-5 × NM-94, OUM-11-5 × ML-818 and ML-1299 × EC-693376. Five of the crosses recorded dominance effects with higher magnitude. Similar results were recorded by
Kute and Deshmukh (2002),
Murthy (2000),
Gawande and Patil (2007) and
Singh et al., (2007). Additive × additive interactions were found significant in OUM-11-5 × NM-94 and OUM-11-5 × ML-818 and ML-1299 × EC-693376, while significant dominance × dominance gene effects as well as duplicate gene action was recorded in three crosses (EC-693369 × NM-94, OUM-11-5 × NM-94 and OUM-11-5 × ML-818). Predominant non-additive gene effects may retard the selection process in the earlier generations. Advancing the generations will allow new combination of alleles to arise, which will result in superior lines. Similar results have been reported by
Kute and Deshmukh (2002) and
Ram (1997).
All the crosses except ML-1299 × EC-693376 recorded significant for one or both the scales for pod length indicating the presence of non-allelic interactions. Duplicate gene interaction was evidenced from the opposite signs of h and l estimates in two crosses (Table 3). Similar results were obtained by
Singh et al., (2007) and
Barad et al., (2008).
A critical analysis for seeds per pod (Table 3) revealed the presence of additive effect in EC-693369 × NM-94, LGG-460 × EC-693376, OUM-11-5 × NM-94 and EC-693369 × ML-818. Dominance effects were found predominant.
Ram (1997),
Gawande and Patil (2007) and
Singh et al., (2007) also reported similar results. Additive × additive interaction components were significant for the crosses ML-1299 × EC-693376 and LGG-460 × EC-693376.
Ajit and Singh (1996) and
Murthy (2000) obtained similar results for this trait. Most of the crosses exhibited duplicate type epistasis for this trait.
Significance of scale C with similar sign of h and l confirmed complementary type of epistasis in the cross EC-693369 × ML-818. Similar kind of result was also obtained for the trait by
Rao et al., (1984). Significant additive gene effect (d) was noticed only in the cross EC-693376 × ML-818. Significance of additive component for this trait was also reported by
Kute and Deshmukh (2002) and
Singh et al., (2007). Magnitude of dominance effect (h) was higher than additive effect (d) for most of the crosses which was also observed in earlier experiments by
Malik and Singh (1983),
Seenaiah (1995) and
Ajit and Singh (1996). Hence, selection in later generations will be ineffective for this trait.
For seed yield per plant, both the scales were significant in all the crosses. Dominance effects were higher in magnitude in four crosses and levels of magnitude varied between crosses for the same character. Ram (1997) and
Gawande and Patil (2007) also reported dominance effect for this character. Among the two epistatic effects, additive × additive (i) component was significant for five crosses and dominance × dominance (l) gene effects were significant in two crosses (Table 3). Similar results were reported by
Murthy (2000) and
Kute and Deshmukh (2002). Presence of both duplicate and complementary epistasis indicates that improvement of yield mainly depends on the type of cross combinations that are selected for the trait improvement. This study indicates that both duplicate and complementary epistasis are important for the improvement of this character (
Aher and Dahat, 1999 and
Khattak et al., 2004).
The magnitude of dominance was observed in the traits plant height, primary branches per plant and seeds per pod. Higher dominance gene action suggested that the heterosis breeding will be rewarding in improving these traits in mungbean
(Singh et al., 2007). Significance of both the interaction components suggested that selection between families and lines will be promising for the improvement of clusters per plant
(Patel et al., 2012).