The mean performance for all the traits under investigation for both the crosses is presented in Table 2. This indicated that the mean performance of F
1 was higher for VL, CP, ADF, NDF and IVDMD for cross between C-88 and TNFC 6926 (Cross-I) and for cross between CL 400 and C-74 (Cross-II), the higher values for F
1 was observed for LL, GFY, DMY, CP and IVDMD traits. The presence of transgressive segregants can be observed for all the traits under investigation for both Cross I and II. The performance for BC
1 outperformed for traits like VL, ADF and NDF for Cross-I and GFY, DMY, ADF and IVDM for Cross-II. BC
2 performed better for VL and IVDMD for Cross-I and PH, VL, GFY, DMY, ADF and IVDM for Cross-II. There was large degree of variation present among the morpho-agronomic traits under study. This suggests the heritable variation present can be utilised by the breeders for the improvement of genotypes. Similar results have been reported for fodder traits by
Jatasara et al. (1982);
Tyagi et al. (1978) and
Nehru and Manjunath (2000). The breeding strategies to be adopted for the improvement of traits largely depend on the type of gene action. The simple selection should be more promising if the trait is controlled by additive gene action, whereas in the presence of inter-allelic interactions (complimentary or duplicate gene action) different strategies such as crossing followed by selection to be adopted. Thus the estimation of additive, dominance and epistasis components are paramount for planning and execution of any breeding programme. The generation mean analysis was performed to check the nature of gene action involved in controlling the traits under investigation.
Scaling test
The scaling tests A, B, C and D were performed to check the adequacy of simple additive-dominance model. The significant values of scaling tests indicate the presence of epistatic interactions. In the present investigation the significant values were observed for all fodder yield and quality related traits for both Cross-I and II.
In Cross-I, A, B, C and D were important for VL, NOL, and GFY. A, B and C were important for LL and DMY. A, B and D were important for PH and CP. B, C and D were important for NDF. A and C were important for LW. B and C were important for ADF. C and D were important for IVDMD. In Cross-II, A, B, C and D were important for PH, VL, LL, LW, GFY, DMY, ADF and IVDMD. B and D were important for NOL and CP. B, C and D were important for NDF (Table 3, 4). These results provide the evidence for the failure of simple additive-dominance model and can be concluded that di-genic interactions were present for traits under investigation. Therefore, the six parametric model analyses could be done to estimate the interactions between these traits.
Estimate of gene effects and components of variances
Usually, additive [d] and additive x additive [i] effects are positive in all study traits and the sum of additive [d] and additive x additive [i] effects are of greater magnitude in comparison with dominance [h] and dominance x dominance [j] effects
(Adyenju et al., 2012). This suggests the presence of additive variation which favours the selection at early generations.
For Cross-I (Table 5), the mean [m] for morpho-agronomic traits under study was significant for all traits except GFY and ADF which indicates the contribution due to mean, locus effects and interaction. Additive gene effects [d] were significant for all traits except CP, ADF and NDF. This indicates the effectiveness of additive gene action [d] for improving such traits. The dominant gene effects [h] were significant for all traits under investigation except DMY. This reflects the importance of dominance gene effects for the improvement of such traits. The magnitude of [d] compared to [h] indicated that for the traits like LL and LW, [d] is predominant and [h] is predominant for trait like VL.
However, Additive x Additive gene actions [i] were significant for all traits except NOL. The positive and significant values indicated the presence of associating gene pairs for VL, LL, LW, GFY DMY, ADF and NDF. Additve x Dominance [j] were significant for LL, LW, CP, ADF, NDF and IVDMD; and Dominance ´ Dominance [l] were significant for all traits except DMY. These indicate the importance of three types of interactions for the improvement of traits like LL, LW, CP, ADF, NDF and IVDMD. [l] is predominant for PH, CP and IVDMD with highly positive and significant values. The opposite signs of [h] and [l] indicated that Duplicate gene action was present for all traits under study. This will slow down the process of selection and range of variability should be limited.
In Cross-II (Table 6), overall mean [m] were significant for all traits except VL and NOL. Additive gene effects [d] were significant for all traits except DMY and ADF. Dominant gene effects [h] were significant for PH, LW, GFY, DMY, CP, NDF and IVDMD. This signifies the importance and effectiveness of both additive and dominance gene effects for the improvement of these traits. The magnitude of [d] and [h] were compared, this indicates that [d] was predominant for VL, LL and LW whereas [h] was predominant for PH.
Additive x additive gene actions [i] were significant for PH, GFY, DMY, CP, NDF and IVDMD. The positive and significant values indicated the presence of associating gene pairs for PH, GFY and DMY. Additve x dominance [j] were significant for PH, VL, NOL, LL, LW and GFY; and Dominance x dominance [l] gene effects were significant for PH, LL, LW, DMY, CP, NDF and IVDMD. These indicate the importance of three types of interactions for the improvement of traits like PH. [l] is predominant for CP, NDF and IVDMD with highly positive and significant values. The opposite signs of [h] and [l] indicated that Duplicate gene action was present for all traits under study except GFY. This will slow down the process of selection and range of variability should be limited. However, GFY indicated the presence of complimentary gene action for Cross-II, which supported that selection at early segregating generations would be effective.
The genetic control of PH was not in agreement as estimated by
Filho et al. (2020) but it showed the similar results to
Adeyanju et al. (2012) and
Shinde et al. (2021). As the leaf weight is correlated to number of leaves, leaf length and leaf width, leaf weight is controlled by positive additive and dominance gene effects
(Adeyanju et al., 2012). However, for Cross-I, the NOL showed contradicting results but favour the results for leaf length and leaf width and for Cross-II, LL and LW showed that additive gene effect is predominant and positively significant for dominance ´ dominance [l]. The genetic components for GFY showed varied results depending on the genotypes selected for the breeding programme and is a complex trait reported by many workers
(Adeyanju et al., 2012; Grafius, 1956;
Mitra et al., 2001; Tyagi et al., 2000).
Hayman (1960) has indicated when epistasis is of major importance in the inheritance of a trait, and then it is impossible to obtain unbiased estimates of pooled additive or dominance effects. The presence of both additive and non-additive gene effects in controlling such traits suggested that recurrent selection followed by pedigree method is suitable for these crosses.
Molecular marker analysis
Fodder yield related traits are quantitatively inherited and are controlled by several genetic loci as suggested by generation mean analysis. It is difficult to measure the genetic components for green fodder yield. To speed up the process of breeding programme, marker assisted breeding should be deployed. The major fodder yield related architectural traits include PH, VL, NOL, LL and LW
(Tyagi et al., 1978; Chopra and Singh, 1977;
Thaware et al., 1991). Identification of associated SSR markers at a major locus contributing to such plant architectural traits contributing to green fodder yield would be useful in identification and selection of plants. SSR markers associated with trait of interest were identified using Bulked Segregant Analysis (BSA)
(Michelmore et al., 1991).
In the present investigation, short plant type C-88, tall plant type TNFC 6926 and their F
2 population were subjected to molecular marker analysis to identify the SSR markers associated with erectness in cowpea. A total of 151 SSR markers were used to check the polymorphism between C-88 and TNFC 6926. Out of these, 15 markers turned out to be polymorphic for parental lines. Fig 3 shows the polymorphism for SSR 6314, VuUGM07 and VuUGM103 between C-88 and TNFC 6926. The list of polymorphic markers is presented in Table 7 and 8.
As
Tyagi et al. (1978) reported that PH and GFY showed positive and significant correlation, two bulks of extreme phenotypes related to plant height were formed by pooling the DNA of 10 individuals of F
2 population for each bulk. These 15 polymorphic SSRs were deployed for Bulk Segregant Analysis (BSA). 3 SSRs showed putative relatedness to the erectness out of 15 parental polymorphic markers.
Fig 4 shows the BSA for two sets of markers, SSR 6314 and VuUGM11
, P
1 denotes C-88, B
1 denotes Bulk 1 with semi-erect plant types, B
2 denotes Bulk 2 with prostrate plant types and P
2 denotes TNFC 6926 and shows the relatedness of these markers with semi-erectness of the plants and these markers needed to be amplified on whole F
2 population. The more number of markers on a large population is required to identify tightly linked markers associated with erectness.