Current IssueSpecial IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive
Current IssueSpecial IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive

Full Research Article

Assessing Genetic Effects and Identification of Superior Hybrids in Field Pea on Partially Reclaimed Sodic Soil

A
Aryan Raghuvanshi1
C
Chinthalapalli Ajay Chandra1
R
R. Hyndhavi1
P
Piyusha Singh1
D
Digvijay Singh2
C
Charupriya Chauhan1
A
Akash Gaurav Singh1,*
1Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, Acharya Narendra Deva University of Agriculture and Technology, Kumarganj, Ayodhya-224 229, Uttar Pradesh, India.
2Department of Seed Science and Technology, Acharya Narendra Deva University of Agriculture and Technology, Kumarganj, Ayodhya-224 229, Uttar Pradesh, India.

  • Submitted29-04-2026|

  • Accepted16-07-2026|

  • First Online 12-08-2026|

  • doi 10.18805/LR-5672

ABSTRACT

Background: Pisum sativum L. is an important pulse crop with high nutritional content. However, its productivity is facing major challenge due to sodicity. So, the present investigation was carried out to identify the superior hybrids in field pea.

Methods: Diallel design (excluding reciprocals) was done with ten parental lines to produce forty-five F1s and were tested for heterosis, combining ability and variability for yield and its related traits.

Result: Analysis of variance revealed significant difference between parents and hybrids for all traits, with pod length showing higher significance in hybrids. The cross-Pant P 514 × HFP 1802 exhibited outstanding seed yield with positive and highly significant heterosis over better parent. SCA variance exceeded GCA variance for most of the traits, indicating non-additive gene action; HFP1424 and IPFD 21-5 were identified has a good general combiner, while several crosses showed high SCA effects. High GCV, PCV with high heritability and genetic advance suggest their importance for further programs breeding.

INTRODUCTION

Pisum sativum L. (Field pea) belongs to family Fabaceae (Leguminosae); is an important Rabi pulse crop cultivated for its dry seeds also known as “dry pea” and had high value for its nutritional content, with 27.8% proteins, carbohydrates (56.5%), 2.2% minerals (calcium, phosphorus), 4.5% dietary fiber and essential vitamins (5.67g/100g edible portion) (Parihar et al., 2021). In India, pulses are cultivated over 30.37 million hectares with productivity nearly 27 million tonnes (Anonymous, 2022-23). However, Productivity remains relatively low due to various biotic and abiotic constraints, among them sodicity is a major constraint. where excess sodium disperse soil particles, reduces pore space, hampers soil structure, water filtration and aeration and ultimately leading to poor germination and crop establishment. Additionally, sodicity disrupts microbial activity like nitrogen fixation Rhizobium, ultimately reducing nodulation and yield.
       
Genetic improvement of field pea under stress conditions requires efficient breeding strategies. Selection of suitable parents based on combining ability is crucial for the success of hybridization programme while it was determined by diallel mating design, which was proposed by, Sprague and Tatum (1942), widely used to estimate general combining ability and specific combining ability which shows additive and non-additive gene action respectively enabling the assessment of additive and non-additive genetic variance. At the same time hybrid performance is very important in any breeding progrmme. The was estimated by heterosis or hybrid vigor by using yield and its components (Falconer and Mackay, 1996). Since most of the traits are controlled by quantitatively means there was a role of environment in selection process so understanding of genetic variability, combining ability and heterosis is essential for selection of superior genotypes and parents. Therefore, the study was conducted to evaluate the parents and hybrids for identification best combiners and hybrids for sodic conditions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Experimental site and details  
 
The investigation was conducted in Genetics and Plant Breeding research farm of Acharya Narendra Deva University of Agriculture and Technology, Kumarganj, Ayodhya Uttar Pradesh, in semi -arid climate. Soil testing was done prior to sowing using standard protocols for Sodicity. The soil exhibited high level of pH (>8.5), exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP) >15 and sodium absorption ratio was > 15 and conferring the sodicity. The experimental material comprised of 10 genotypes of parents (Table 1) having high morphological diversity and high yielding are crossed in diallel mating design (excluding reciprocals); obtained 45 F1s during Rabi of 2023–2024. These 55 genotypes (Ten parental genotypes + forty-five F1s) further planted in randomized block design with three replications of 4m row length with spacing of 30 × 15 cm during Rabi 2024-2025 and evaluated. Data was collected from 5 randomly selected plants in every replication for plant height (PH), total number of pods per plant (TNP), primary branches (PB), secondary branches (SB),  number of seeds per pod (NSP), pod length (PL), 100-seed weight (SW) and seed yield per plant except for days to 50% flowering and days to maturity where data was recorded on plot basis and mean value for the treatment was calculated. The obtained data was calculated by using R studio programme (version 2023.03.1-446) and estimated the analysis of variance, GCA, SCA and their effects, heterosis, genetic variability.

Table 1: List of parental genotypes.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Analysis of variance revealed significant differences among genotypes for all studied traits suggesting the presence of genetic variability and further used for genetic analysis and selection. Similar results have been reported by Kumar et al., (2018) and Vennela (2023) under diverse soil environments (sodic). Furthermore, partitioning of mean sum of squares into parents, hybrids and parents’ vs hybrids showed significant difference among all traits, indicating considerable variability among parents and hybrid combinations. The variation between parent’s verse hybrids (P vs F1) helpful for the potential for selection of superior hybrid combinations and parental lines suited to sodic soil conditions. These results were similar to earlier reports of Kumar et al., (2018) and Bhaiya and Vimal (2025).
       
The mean performance of parents and their crosses are well across the studied traits. Earliness in flowering was showed by parent IPFD 18-3 and in hybrids by HUDP 15 × KPMR 954 which was desirable trait to avoid stress conditions. Regarding maturation, cross IPFD 21-1 × HUDP 15 matured earlier and parent KPMR 954 while advantageous to escape terminal drought under degraded soils. In case of plant height medium height were preferred, hybrid HUDP 15 × Pant P 508 recorded lowest. In parental lines HFP 4 recorded with the lowest height. The number of branches such as both primary and secondary showed significant variation among genotypes and contributing to the yield potential. Hybrid IPFD 21-1 × HFP 1802 and parents HFP 1424 and IPFD 18-3 recorded higher primary branches, for secondary branches, parent Pant P514 and cross Pant P 514 × IPFD 21-5 showed more number branches. Pod production is a main component of yield crosses, Pant P 514 × HFP 1802 and HFP 1424 × KPMR 954 and parent HFP 1424 produced relatively more pods. Seed related traits like seeds per pod, pod length and seed weight exhibited higher by cross IPFD 21-5 × IPFD 18-3 and parent KPMR 954 except for seed weight which further showed by IPFD 21-5 parent. The cross between Pant P 514 × HFP 1802 produced higher yield, in parent higher yield observed in HFP 1424 followed by KPMR 954, indicates the great scope for selection breeding programs. Similar conclusions have been reported by Ceyhan et al., (2008) and Yadav et al., (2023) reinforcing the effectiveness of parent-specific hybridization in trait improvement.
       
Table 2 showed range, PV, GV, GCV, PCV, heritability, genetic advancement and genetic advancement as percent mean. While the mean and range values there was variation among genotypes and had an influence of environment. The GV and PV was carried out know the genetic effect in the improvement of field pea, the higher values are shown by plant height, seed yield and number of secondary branches. The phenotypic variance is greater than genotypic variance; indicates the environmental effect. Similarly, PCV is higher than GCV for all traits suggesting environmental influence on studied traits. The PCV and GCV values if ranges above 20%, or between 10% to 20% or below 10% indicates the higher, moderate and lower values. The higher GCV and PCV values were shown by seed yield followed by plant height, number of pods per plant and number of secondary branches suggesting less influence of environment and these traits can be further used breeding programmes and moderate GCV and PCV recorded for number of seeds per pods indicating that selection will be beneficial in advance generations. the lowest PCV and GCV was exhibited by days to 50% flowering along with days to maturity and 100-seed weight. Pod length showed moderate PCV and lowest GCV and highest GCV and moderate PCV was exhibited by number of primary branches The overall low variation in these traits suggest limited scope for effective selection. Similar results were shown by the findings of Katoch et al., (2016), Meena et al. (2017) and Sharma et al., (2017).  Heritability estimates ranged widely from 43.55% to 99.71%. The highest heritability (above 60%) showed by seed yield (99.71%), followed by 100-see weight (99.78%), plant height (99.39%), secondary branches (96.49%), pods per plant (86.74%), days to maturity (80.59%) and pod length (50.25%) and moderate (30-60%) heritability was shown by seeds per pod (48.24%), days to flowering (44.40%) and primary branches (43.55%). The only heritability values can’t futher help in breeding programme it requires the value of genetic advancement as percent means for proper selection criteria. It was done by the procedure of Johnson (1955) for estimation of heritability along with genetic advancement as per cent mean. Traits such as seed yield followed by plant height, number of pods per plant and number of secondary branches exhibited higher values above 20% these indicates variance were due to additive gene action. number of primary branches and number of seeds per pod exhibited moderate genetic advancement as percent mean (10-20%). Least (below 10%) was shown by days to 50% flowering, days to maturity, pod length and 100-seed weight indicate non-additive gene action. Overall results suggest that traits which are governed by additive were effective in selection compared to non-additive gene action. Due to non-additive gene action, selection in these traits will not be beneficial. The similar findings were observed in the studies of Lal et al., (2011); Pathak et al., (2019) and Singh et al., (2019). These parameters described better traits for efficient breeding selection based on hybrids which shows better performance to these traits. So, heterosis was calculated for various traits for identification better crosses.

Table 2: Variability studies for yield and its component traits in field pea.


       
Significant heterosis were showed by all traits, showing adequate genetic divergence among parents, while for the traits DF, DM and plant height requires negative heterosis, shown by crosses HUDP 15 × KPMR 954, IPFD 18-3 × Pant P 508 and HFP 4 × KPMR 954 respectively. Traits such as branches, seeds per pod, 100-seed weight, number of pods and seed yield require considerable positive heterosis. For trait number of primary branching cross HUDP 15 × Pant P 514, exceptionally showed high positive heterosis. For secondary branches the values were in negative. The positive heterosis for pod number shown by HFP 4 × Pant P 508. Cross pant P 508 × HFP 1802 showed positive heterosis over better parent for traits such as seed weight, pod length, number of seeds for pod and seed yield. These crosses can be exploited for above traits to grow hybrids with high yielders. These findings are in close agreement with Joshi et al., (2016); Borah (2019) and Halil et al., (2020) who all reported considerable heterotic effects for yield and its component traits in field pea.  
       
The analysis of variance for combining ability (Fig 1) revealed that general combining and specific combining ability was significant for most of studied characters except number of seeds per pod and pod length in case of SCA, indicating the role of fixable additive and non-additive gene action respectively. The ratio of GCA/SCA value was below one suggest the non-additive gene action for some studied traits while for others it is above one suggest additive gene action plays a major role in inheritance further in selection. Similar findings reported by Singh et al., (2005) and Kumar et al., (2017) that additive gene action played a major role in the inheritance of traits like plant height, number of pods per plant and seed yield in field pea.

Fig 1: Line graph showing gca/sca ratio of traits of field pea.


       
The GCA effects (Fig 2), reveals additive type of gene action and showed significant magnitude for traits studied. The parent HFP 1424 can be taken as good general combiner for seed yield, total number of pods and days to maturity, indicating as better combiners for higher seed yield in breeding program. While other parents also can be used as better combiners of other traits such as, IPFD 18-3 recorded better combing ability for early flowering, total number of seeds per pod and pod length while parents HFP 4, Pant P 508, Pant P514, for dwarf stature, primary branching, secondary branching respectively. Parent IPFD 21-5 showed good general combining ability for seed weight also well as seed yield like parent HFP 1424. These findings show the predominance of additive and additive × additive effects in the study. Earlier findings of Punia et al., (2011), Sharma et al., (2023) and Gupta et al., (2024) on par with results.

Fig 2: GCA effects of parents.


       
The estimates of SCA effects represent the role of non-additive gene action in the expression of traits. Pant P 514 × HFP 1802, HFP 4 × Pant P 508, KPMR 954 × HFP 1802, HFP 1424 × KPMR 954 and HFP 1424×IPFD 18-3, showed the highest significant SCA effects for seed yield indicating their potential for hybrid development as described in Fig 3. The highest negative SCA effect for DF was found in HUDP 15 × KPMR 954, HFP 4 × HFP 1802, HFP 1424 × HUDP 15 crosses, while HFP4 × IPFD 18-3, IPFD 21-1 × Pant P 508 and IPFD 21-1 × HUDP 15, showed negative and significant SCA effects for DM. For PL, IPFD 18-3 × HFP 1802, HFP 4 × Pant P 508 shows significant SCA effects. Better specific combiner for trait TNP was showed by crosses HFP 4 × Pant P 508, Pant P 514 × HFP 1802 and KPMR 954 × HFP 1802.

Fig 3: Top-performing hybrids based on SCA for seed yield per plant.


       
The crosses HFP 4 × IPFD 18-3 and Pant P 514 × HFP 1802, showed the highest specific combining ability for SNP. For the trait SW four crosses, HUDP 15 × Pant P 508, HFP 4 × KPMR 954, IPFD 21-5 × IPFD 18-3 and Pant P 508 × HFP 1802 showed positive SCA effect. For PH negative significant SCA was found in HUDP 15 × Pant P 508 and HUDP 15 × Pant P 508, for PB IPFD 21-1 × HFP 1802 and HUDP 15 × Pant P 514 and for SB the crosses pant P 514 × HFP 1802, HFP1424 × IPFD 21-5. The results revealed that no single cross exhibited superiority across all evaluated traits. However, certain crosses hold potential for developing desirable hybrids from genetically diverse populations, thereby contributing to enhanced heterosis and the development of high-yielding genotypes.
       
Comparable observations regarding the identification of promising crosses based on SCA effects for yield and its contributing traits in field pea have been reported by Kosev et al., (2012). Interestingly, high SCA effects did not always correspond with parental lines exhibiting strong general combining ability (GCA). For example, the hybrid combination HFP 4 × Pant P 508 showed significant SCA for seed yield, despite both parents exhibiting negative GCA for this trait. This may be attributed to interactions between contrasting alleles present in the parental lines a phenomenon also documented by Yadav et al., (2019) and Sharma et al., (2023) in previous studies.

CONCLUSION

The present study revealed that hybrids Pant P 514 × HFP 1802 and HFP 1424 × IPFD 21-5, identified as superior cross for seed yield through SCA effects. In terms of general combining ability, HFP 1424 and IPFD 21-5 were emerged as strong general combiners for yield and related traits. The collective findings provide a valuable foundation for enhancing flied pea productivity through targeted breeding strategies.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We whole heartedly acknowledge the support in terms of guidance by faculty of Research Farm of Genetics and Plant Breeding.
 
Disclaimer
 
The content of this article is based on the author’s research and reflects the author’s view points and interpretations. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the information presented and assumes the responsibility for its content.
 
Informed consent
 
This study doesn’t involve animals and other living organisms so therefore no ethical consent is required.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The author declare no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES


  1. Anonymous. (2022-23). Agricultural Statistics at a Glance. Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India.

  2. Bhaiya, R. and Vimal, S.C. (2025). Genetic variability, heritability and genetic advance in field pea (Pisum sativum L.) for yield and its component traits using diallel cross analysis.  Ecology, Environment and Conservation. 31: (0971765X).

  3. Borah, H.K. (2019). Studies on combining ability and heterosis in field pea (Pisum Sativum L.). Legume Research. 32(4): 255-259.

  4. Ceyhan, E., Kahraman, A. and Avci, M. (2008). Line × tester analysis in pea (Pisum sativum L.): Identification of superior parents for seed yield and its components. African Journal of Biotechnology. 7(16): 2810-2817.  

  5. Falconer, D.S. and Mackay, T.F.C. (1996). Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. 4th ed. Longman Group Ltd., Essex, England.

  6. Gupta, A., Singh, B., Kumar, M., Sharma, V.R., Chauhan, C., Rout, S. and Yadav, K.S. (2024).  Combining ability and heterosis analysis for seed yield and yield-related traits in table pea [Pisum sativum (L.) var. Hortense]. Legume Research. 47(11): 1858-1863. doi: 10.18805/LR-4978.  

  7. Halil, D.S. and Uzun, A. (2020). Combining abilities and heterotic groups for seed yield and yield components in pea (Pisum sativum L.). Journal of Agricultural Sciences/ Tarim Bilimleri Dergisi. 26(4): 415-423.

  8. Johnson, H.W., Robinson, H.F. and Comstock, R.E. (1955). Estimates of genetic and environmental variability in soybeans. Agronomy Journal. 47: 314-318.

  9. Joshi, D.J., Ravindrababu, Y. and Patel, A.M. (2016). Diallel analysis in field pea [Pisum sativum (L.) var arvense.]. Electronic Journal of Plant Breeding. 7(3): 611-619.

  10. Katoch, V., Singh, P., Devi, M.B., Sharma, A., Sharma, G.D. and Sharma, J.K. (2016). Study of genetic variability, character association, path analysis and selection parameters for heterotic recombinant inbred lines of garden peas (Pisum sativum var. hortense L.) under mid-hill conditions of Himachal Pradesh, India. Legume Research. doi: 10.18805/lr.v0iof.6775.

  11. Kosev, V., Vassileva, V. and Petrova, T. (2012). Inheritance of quantitative traits in crosses between two (Pisum sativum) subspecies with particular reference to their breeding value. Russian Journal of Genetics. 48(1): 41-46.  

  12. Kumar, M., Jeberson, M.S., Singh, N.B. and Sharma, R. (2017). Genetic analysis of seed yield and its contributing traits and pattern of their inheritance in field pea (Pisum sativum L). International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 6(6): 172-181.

  13. Kumar, M., Jeberson, M.S., Singh, N.B., Sharma, R. and Patel, R.S. (2018). Analysis of trait association and principal component of variability in field pea (Pisum sativum L.) genotypes.  The Pharma Innovation Journal. 7(8): 437-441.

  14. Lal, G.M., Meena, M.L., Chandra, K.U.N.J. and Singh, C.M. (2011). Assessment of genetic variability and interrelation between yield and its contributing components in field pea (Pisum sativum L.). Environment and Ecology. 29(5): 1235-1239.

  15. Meena, B.L., Das, S.P., Meena, S.K., Kumari, R., Devi, A.G. and Devi, H.L. (2017). Assessment of GCV, PCV, heritability and genetic advance for yield and its components in field pea (Pisum sativum L.). International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 6(5): 1025- 1033.

  16. Parihar, A.K., Dixit, G.P., Singh, U., Singh, A.K., Kumar, N. and Gupta, S. (2021). Potential of Field Pea as a Nutritionally Rich Food Legume Crop. In Breeding for Enhanced Nutrition and Bio-Active Compounds in Food Legumes.  Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp (47-82). 

  17. Pathak, V.N., Pandey, R.K., Verma, S.P., Ray, J., Singh, B. and Jee, C. (2019). Studies of genetic variability, heritability and genetic advance for yield contributing traits in field pea (Pisum sativum L.). Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 8(4): 2587-2589.

  18. Punia, S.S., Ram, B., Verma, P., Koli, N.R. and Rokaria, P. (2011). Combining ability studies in field pea (Pisum sativum L.). J. Food Legumes. 24(3): 120-124.

  19. Sharma, A., Yadav, R., Sheoran, R., Kaushik, D., Mohanta, T.K., Sharma, K., Yadav, A., Dhanda, P.S. and Kaushik, P. (2023). Estimation of heterosis and the combining ability effect for yield and its attributes in field pea (Pisum sativum L.) using PCA and GGE biplots. Horticulturae.  9(2): 256. 

  20. Sharma, P.P., Vyas, M. and Meghawal, D.R., (2017). Estimation of genetic variability and correlation analysis in field pea (Pisum sativum L.) genotypes. Journal of Plant Development Sciences. 9(1): 53-56.

  21. Singh, S., Verma, V., Singh, B., Sharma, V.R. and Kumar, M. (2019). Genetic variability, heritability and genetic advance studies in pea (Pisum sativum L.) for quantitative characters. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 53(5): 542-547. doi: 10.18805/IJARe.A-5245.

  22. Singh, H., Singh, M. and Brar, P.S. (2005). Heterosis and combining ability studies for economic traits in genetically diverse lines of garden pea (Pisum sativum L.). Crop Improvement- India. 32(1): 78.

  23. Sprague, G.F. and Tatum, L.A. (1942). General vs. specific combining ability in single crosses of corn. Journal of the American Society of Agronomy. 34(10): 923-932.

  24. Vennela, M. (2023). Genetic variability, heritability and genetic advance studies in field pea (Pisum sativum L.) for yield and its attributing traits. Int. J. Environ. Clim. Change. 13(8):  2190-2197.

  25. Yadav, B., Sao, A. and Gauraha, D. (2019). Combining ability analysis for yield and attributing traits in field pea (Pisum sativum L.). Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 8(6): 1976- 1981.

  26. Yadav, I., Sharma, V., Kumar, M., Yadav, L.P., Mishra, A., Singh, V., Singh, D.P., Yadav, A., Yadav, M., Singh, S.K. and Kamaluddin. (2023). Assessment of gene action and identification of heterotic hybrids for enhancing yield in field pea. Horticulturae.  9(9): 997.
Published In
Legume Research
Article Metrics
Metrics Icon
40
Views
0
Citations
Reviewed By
Share Article
Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Full Research Article

    Assessing Genetic Effects and Identification of Superior Hybrids in Field Pea on Partially Reclaimed Sodic Soil

    A
    Aryan Raghuvanshi1
    C
    Chinthalapalli Ajay Chandra1
    R
    R. Hyndhavi1
    P
    Piyusha Singh1
    D
    Digvijay Singh2
    C
    Charupriya Chauhan1
    A
    Akash Gaurav Singh1,*
    1Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, Acharya Narendra Deva University of Agriculture and Technology, Kumarganj, Ayodhya-224 229, Uttar Pradesh, India.
    2Department of Seed Science and Technology, Acharya Narendra Deva University of Agriculture and Technology, Kumarganj, Ayodhya-224 229, Uttar Pradesh, India.

    • Submitted29-04-2026|

    • Accepted16-07-2026|

    • First Online 12-08-2026|

    • doi 10.18805/LR-5672

    ABSTRACT

    Background: Pisum sativum L. is an important pulse crop with high nutritional content. However, its productivity is facing major challenge due to sodicity. So, the present investigation was carried out to identify the superior hybrids in field pea.

    Methods: Diallel design (excluding reciprocals) was done with ten parental lines to produce forty-five F1s and were tested for heterosis, combining ability and variability for yield and its related traits.

    Result: Analysis of variance revealed significant difference between parents and hybrids for all traits, with pod length showing higher significance in hybrids. The cross-Pant P 514 × HFP 1802 exhibited outstanding seed yield with positive and highly significant heterosis over better parent. SCA variance exceeded GCA variance for most of the traits, indicating non-additive gene action; HFP1424 and IPFD 21-5 were identified has a good general combiner, while several crosses showed high SCA effects. High GCV, PCV with high heritability and genetic advance suggest their importance for further programs breeding.

    INTRODUCTION

    Pisum sativum L. (Field pea) belongs to family Fabaceae (Leguminosae); is an important Rabi pulse crop cultivated for its dry seeds also known as “dry pea” and had high value for its nutritional content, with 27.8% proteins, carbohydrates (56.5%), 2.2% minerals (calcium, phosphorus), 4.5% dietary fiber and essential vitamins (5.67g/100g edible portion) (Parihar et al., 2021). In India, pulses are cultivated over 30.37 million hectares with productivity nearly 27 million tonnes (Anonymous, 2022-23). However, Productivity remains relatively low due to various biotic and abiotic constraints, among them sodicity is a major constraint. where excess sodium disperse soil particles, reduces pore space, hampers soil structure, water filtration and aeration and ultimately leading to poor germination and crop establishment. Additionally, sodicity disrupts microbial activity like nitrogen fixation Rhizobium, ultimately reducing nodulation and yield.
           
    Genetic improvement of field pea under stress conditions requires efficient breeding strategies. Selection of suitable parents based on combining ability is crucial for the success of hybridization programme while it was determined by diallel mating design, which was proposed by, Sprague and Tatum (1942), widely used to estimate general combining ability and specific combining ability which shows additive and non-additive gene action respectively enabling the assessment of additive and non-additive genetic variance. At the same time hybrid performance is very important in any breeding progrmme. The was estimated by heterosis or hybrid vigor by using yield and its components (Falconer and Mackay, 1996). Since most of the traits are controlled by quantitatively means there was a role of environment in selection process so understanding of genetic variability, combining ability and heterosis is essential for selection of superior genotypes and parents. Therefore, the study was conducted to evaluate the parents and hybrids for identification best combiners and hybrids for sodic conditions.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS

    Experimental site and details  
     
    The investigation was conducted in Genetics and Plant Breeding research farm of Acharya Narendra Deva University of Agriculture and Technology, Kumarganj, Ayodhya Uttar Pradesh, in semi -arid climate. Soil testing was done prior to sowing using standard protocols for Sodicity. The soil exhibited high level of pH (>8.5), exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP) >15 and sodium absorption ratio was > 15 and conferring the sodicity. The experimental material comprised of 10 genotypes of parents (Table 1) having high morphological diversity and high yielding are crossed in diallel mating design (excluding reciprocals); obtained 45 F1s during Rabi of 2023–2024. These 55 genotypes (Ten parental genotypes + forty-five F1s) further planted in randomized block design with three replications of 4m row length with spacing of 30 × 15 cm during Rabi 2024-2025 and evaluated. Data was collected from 5 randomly selected plants in every replication for plant height (PH), total number of pods per plant (TNP), primary branches (PB), secondary branches (SB),  number of seeds per pod (NSP), pod length (PL), 100-seed weight (SW) and seed yield per plant except for days to 50% flowering and days to maturity where data was recorded on plot basis and mean value for the treatment was calculated. The obtained data was calculated by using R studio programme (version 2023.03.1-446) and estimated the analysis of variance, GCA, SCA and their effects, heterosis, genetic variability.

    Table 1: List of parental genotypes.

    RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

    Analysis of variance revealed significant differences among genotypes for all studied traits suggesting the presence of genetic variability and further used for genetic analysis and selection. Similar results have been reported by Kumar et al., (2018) and Vennela (2023) under diverse soil environments (sodic). Furthermore, partitioning of mean sum of squares into parents, hybrids and parents’ vs hybrids showed significant difference among all traits, indicating considerable variability among parents and hybrid combinations. The variation between parent’s verse hybrids (P vs F1) helpful for the potential for selection of superior hybrid combinations and parental lines suited to sodic soil conditions. These results were similar to earlier reports of Kumar et al., (2018) and Bhaiya and Vimal (2025).
           
    The mean performance of parents and their crosses are well across the studied traits. Earliness in flowering was showed by parent IPFD 18-3 and in hybrids by HUDP 15 × KPMR 954 which was desirable trait to avoid stress conditions. Regarding maturation, cross IPFD 21-1 × HUDP 15 matured earlier and parent KPMR 954 while advantageous to escape terminal drought under degraded soils. In case of plant height medium height were preferred, hybrid HUDP 15 × Pant P 508 recorded lowest. In parental lines HFP 4 recorded with the lowest height. The number of branches such as both primary and secondary showed significant variation among genotypes and contributing to the yield potential. Hybrid IPFD 21-1 × HFP 1802 and parents HFP 1424 and IPFD 18-3 recorded higher primary branches, for secondary branches, parent Pant P514 and cross Pant P 514 × IPFD 21-5 showed more number branches. Pod production is a main component of yield crosses, Pant P 514 × HFP 1802 and HFP 1424 × KPMR 954 and parent HFP 1424 produced relatively more pods. Seed related traits like seeds per pod, pod length and seed weight exhibited higher by cross IPFD 21-5 × IPFD 18-3 and parent KPMR 954 except for seed weight which further showed by IPFD 21-5 parent. The cross between Pant P 514 × HFP 1802 produced higher yield, in parent higher yield observed in HFP 1424 followed by KPMR 954, indicates the great scope for selection breeding programs. Similar conclusions have been reported by Ceyhan et al., (2008) and Yadav et al., (2023) reinforcing the effectiveness of parent-specific hybridization in trait improvement.
           
    Table 2 showed range, PV, GV, GCV, PCV, heritability, genetic advancement and genetic advancement as percent mean. While the mean and range values there was variation among genotypes and had an influence of environment. The GV and PV was carried out know the genetic effect in the improvement of field pea, the higher values are shown by plant height, seed yield and number of secondary branches. The phenotypic variance is greater than genotypic variance; indicates the environmental effect. Similarly, PCV is higher than GCV for all traits suggesting environmental influence on studied traits. The PCV and GCV values if ranges above 20%, or between 10% to 20% or below 10% indicates the higher, moderate and lower values. The higher GCV and PCV values were shown by seed yield followed by plant height, number of pods per plant and number of secondary branches suggesting less influence of environment and these traits can be further used breeding programmes and moderate GCV and PCV recorded for number of seeds per pods indicating that selection will be beneficial in advance generations. the lowest PCV and GCV was exhibited by days to 50% flowering along with days to maturity and 100-seed weight. Pod length showed moderate PCV and lowest GCV and highest GCV and moderate PCV was exhibited by number of primary branches The overall low variation in these traits suggest limited scope for effective selection. Similar results were shown by the findings of Katoch et al., (2016), Meena et al. (2017) and Sharma et al., (2017).  Heritability estimates ranged widely from 43.55% to 99.71%. The highest heritability (above 60%) showed by seed yield (99.71%), followed by 100-see weight (99.78%), plant height (99.39%), secondary branches (96.49%), pods per plant (86.74%), days to maturity (80.59%) and pod length (50.25%) and moderate (30-60%) heritability was shown by seeds per pod (48.24%), days to flowering (44.40%) and primary branches (43.55%). The only heritability values can’t futher help in breeding programme it requires the value of genetic advancement as percent means for proper selection criteria. It was done by the procedure of Johnson (1955) for estimation of heritability along with genetic advancement as per cent mean. Traits such as seed yield followed by plant height, number of pods per plant and number of secondary branches exhibited higher values above 20% these indicates variance were due to additive gene action. number of primary branches and number of seeds per pod exhibited moderate genetic advancement as percent mean (10-20%). Least (below 10%) was shown by days to 50% flowering, days to maturity, pod length and 100-seed weight indicate non-additive gene action. Overall results suggest that traits which are governed by additive were effective in selection compared to non-additive gene action. Due to non-additive gene action, selection in these traits will not be beneficial. The similar findings were observed in the studies of Lal et al., (2011); Pathak et al., (2019) and Singh et al., (2019). These parameters described better traits for efficient breeding selection based on hybrids which shows better performance to these traits. So, heterosis was calculated for various traits for identification better crosses.

    Table 2: Variability studies for yield and its component traits in field pea.


           
    Significant heterosis were showed by all traits, showing adequate genetic divergence among parents, while for the traits DF, DM and plant height requires negative heterosis, shown by crosses HUDP 15 × KPMR 954, IPFD 18-3 × Pant P 508 and HFP 4 × KPMR 954 respectively. Traits such as branches, seeds per pod, 100-seed weight, number of pods and seed yield require considerable positive heterosis. For trait number of primary branching cross HUDP 15 × Pant P 514, exceptionally showed high positive heterosis. For secondary branches the values were in negative. The positive heterosis for pod number shown by HFP 4 × Pant P 508. Cross pant P 508 × HFP 1802 showed positive heterosis over better parent for traits such as seed weight, pod length, number of seeds for pod and seed yield. These crosses can be exploited for above traits to grow hybrids with high yielders. These findings are in close agreement with Joshi et al., (2016); Borah (2019) and Halil et al., (2020) who all reported considerable heterotic effects for yield and its component traits in field pea.  
           
    The analysis of variance for combining ability (Fig 1) revealed that general combining and specific combining ability was significant for most of studied characters except number of seeds per pod and pod length in case of SCA, indicating the role of fixable additive and non-additive gene action respectively. The ratio of GCA/SCA value was below one suggest the non-additive gene action for some studied traits while for others it is above one suggest additive gene action plays a major role in inheritance further in selection. Similar findings reported by Singh et al., (2005) and Kumar et al., (2017) that additive gene action played a major role in the inheritance of traits like plant height, number of pods per plant and seed yield in field pea.

    Fig 1: Line graph showing gca/sca ratio of traits of field pea.


           
    The GCA effects (Fig 2), reveals additive type of gene action and showed significant magnitude for traits studied. The parent HFP 1424 can be taken as good general combiner for seed yield, total number of pods and days to maturity, indicating as better combiners for higher seed yield in breeding program. While other parents also can be used as better combiners of other traits such as, IPFD 18-3 recorded better combing ability for early flowering, total number of seeds per pod and pod length while parents HFP 4, Pant P 508, Pant P514, for dwarf stature, primary branching, secondary branching respectively. Parent IPFD 21-5 showed good general combining ability for seed weight also well as seed yield like parent HFP 1424. These findings show the predominance of additive and additive × additive effects in the study. Earlier findings of Punia et al., (2011), Sharma et al., (2023) and Gupta et al., (2024) on par with results.

    Fig 2: GCA effects of parents.


           
    The estimates of SCA effects represent the role of non-additive gene action in the expression of traits. Pant P 514 × HFP 1802, HFP 4 × Pant P 508, KPMR 954 × HFP 1802, HFP 1424 × KPMR 954 and HFP 1424×IPFD 18-3, showed the highest significant SCA effects for seed yield indicating their potential for hybrid development as described in Fig 3. The highest negative SCA effect for DF was found in HUDP 15 × KPMR 954, HFP 4 × HFP 1802, HFP 1424 × HUDP 15 crosses, while HFP4 × IPFD 18-3, IPFD 21-1 × Pant P 508 and IPFD 21-1 × HUDP 15, showed negative and significant SCA effects for DM. For PL, IPFD 18-3 × HFP 1802, HFP 4 × Pant P 508 shows significant SCA effects. Better specific combiner for trait TNP was showed by crosses HFP 4 × Pant P 508, Pant P 514 × HFP 1802 and KPMR 954 × HFP 1802.

    Fig 3: Top-performing hybrids based on SCA for seed yield per plant.


           
    The crosses HFP 4 × IPFD 18-3 and Pant P 514 × HFP 1802, showed the highest specific combining ability for SNP. For the trait SW four crosses, HUDP 15 × Pant P 508, HFP 4 × KPMR 954, IPFD 21-5 × IPFD 18-3 and Pant P 508 × HFP 1802 showed positive SCA effect. For PH negative significant SCA was found in HUDP 15 × Pant P 508 and HUDP 15 × Pant P 508, for PB IPFD 21-1 × HFP 1802 and HUDP 15 × Pant P 514 and for SB the crosses pant P 514 × HFP 1802, HFP1424 × IPFD 21-5. The results revealed that no single cross exhibited superiority across all evaluated traits. However, certain crosses hold potential for developing desirable hybrids from genetically diverse populations, thereby contributing to enhanced heterosis and the development of high-yielding genotypes.
           
    Comparable observations regarding the identification of promising crosses based on SCA effects for yield and its contributing traits in field pea have been reported by Kosev et al., (2012). Interestingly, high SCA effects did not always correspond with parental lines exhibiting strong general combining ability (GCA). For example, the hybrid combination HFP 4 × Pant P 508 showed significant SCA for seed yield, despite both parents exhibiting negative GCA for this trait. This may be attributed to interactions between contrasting alleles present in the parental lines a phenomenon also documented by Yadav et al., (2019) and Sharma et al., (2023) in previous studies.

    CONCLUSION

    The present study revealed that hybrids Pant P 514 × HFP 1802 and HFP 1424 × IPFD 21-5, identified as superior cross for seed yield through SCA effects. In terms of general combining ability, HFP 1424 and IPFD 21-5 were emerged as strong general combiners for yield and related traits. The collective findings provide a valuable foundation for enhancing flied pea productivity through targeted breeding strategies.

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

    We whole heartedly acknowledge the support in terms of guidance by faculty of Research Farm of Genetics and Plant Breeding.
     
    Disclaimer
     
    The content of this article is based on the author’s research and reflects the author’s view points and interpretations. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the information presented and assumes the responsibility for its content.
     
    Informed consent
     
    This study doesn’t involve animals and other living organisms so therefore no ethical consent is required.

    CONFLICT OF INTEREST

    The author declare no conflict of interest.

    REFERENCES


    1. Anonymous. (2022-23). Agricultural Statistics at a Glance. Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India.

    2. Bhaiya, R. and Vimal, S.C. (2025). Genetic variability, heritability and genetic advance in field pea (Pisum sativum L.) for yield and its component traits using diallel cross analysis.  Ecology, Environment and Conservation. 31: (0971765X).

    3. Borah, H.K. (2019). Studies on combining ability and heterosis in field pea (Pisum Sativum L.). Legume Research. 32(4): 255-259.

    4. Ceyhan, E., Kahraman, A. and Avci, M. (2008). Line × tester analysis in pea (Pisum sativum L.): Identification of superior parents for seed yield and its components. African Journal of Biotechnology. 7(16): 2810-2817.  

    5. Falconer, D.S. and Mackay, T.F.C. (1996). Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. 4th ed. Longman Group Ltd., Essex, England.

    6. Gupta, A., Singh, B., Kumar, M., Sharma, V.R., Chauhan, C., Rout, S. and Yadav, K.S. (2024).  Combining ability and heterosis analysis for seed yield and yield-related traits in table pea [Pisum sativum (L.) var. Hortense]. Legume Research. 47(11): 1858-1863. doi: 10.18805/LR-4978.  

    7. Halil, D.S. and Uzun, A. (2020). Combining abilities and heterotic groups for seed yield and yield components in pea (Pisum sativum L.). Journal of Agricultural Sciences/ Tarim Bilimleri Dergisi. 26(4): 415-423.

    8. Johnson, H.W., Robinson, H.F. and Comstock, R.E. (1955). Estimates of genetic and environmental variability in soybeans. Agronomy Journal. 47: 314-318.

    9. Joshi, D.J., Ravindrababu, Y. and Patel, A.M. (2016). Diallel analysis in field pea [Pisum sativum (L.) var arvense.]. Electronic Journal of Plant Breeding. 7(3): 611-619.

    10. Katoch, V., Singh, P., Devi, M.B., Sharma, A., Sharma, G.D. and Sharma, J.K. (2016). Study of genetic variability, character association, path analysis and selection parameters for heterotic recombinant inbred lines of garden peas (Pisum sativum var. hortense L.) under mid-hill conditions of Himachal Pradesh, India. Legume Research. doi: 10.18805/lr.v0iof.6775.

    11. Kosev, V., Vassileva, V. and Petrova, T. (2012). Inheritance of quantitative traits in crosses between two (Pisum sativum) subspecies with particular reference to their breeding value. Russian Journal of Genetics. 48(1): 41-46.  

    12. Kumar, M., Jeberson, M.S., Singh, N.B. and Sharma, R. (2017). Genetic analysis of seed yield and its contributing traits and pattern of their inheritance in field pea (Pisum sativum L). International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 6(6): 172-181.

    13. Kumar, M., Jeberson, M.S., Singh, N.B., Sharma, R. and Patel, R.S. (2018). Analysis of trait association and principal component of variability in field pea (Pisum sativum L.) genotypes.  The Pharma Innovation Journal. 7(8): 437-441.

    14. Lal, G.M., Meena, M.L., Chandra, K.U.N.J. and Singh, C.M. (2011). Assessment of genetic variability and interrelation between yield and its contributing components in field pea (Pisum sativum L.). Environment and Ecology. 29(5): 1235-1239.

    15. Meena, B.L., Das, S.P., Meena, S.K., Kumari, R., Devi, A.G. and Devi, H.L. (2017). Assessment of GCV, PCV, heritability and genetic advance for yield and its components in field pea (Pisum sativum L.). International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 6(5): 1025- 1033.

    16. Parihar, A.K., Dixit, G.P., Singh, U., Singh, A.K., Kumar, N. and Gupta, S. (2021). Potential of Field Pea as a Nutritionally Rich Food Legume Crop. In Breeding for Enhanced Nutrition and Bio-Active Compounds in Food Legumes.  Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp (47-82). 

    17. Pathak, V.N., Pandey, R.K., Verma, S.P., Ray, J., Singh, B. and Jee, C. (2019). Studies of genetic variability, heritability and genetic advance for yield contributing traits in field pea (Pisum sativum L.). Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 8(4): 2587-2589.

    18. Punia, S.S., Ram, B., Verma, P., Koli, N.R. and Rokaria, P. (2011). Combining ability studies in field pea (Pisum sativum L.). J. Food Legumes. 24(3): 120-124.

    19. Sharma, A., Yadav, R., Sheoran, R., Kaushik, D., Mohanta, T.K., Sharma, K., Yadav, A., Dhanda, P.S. and Kaushik, P. (2023). Estimation of heterosis and the combining ability effect for yield and its attributes in field pea (Pisum sativum L.) using PCA and GGE biplots. Horticulturae.  9(2): 256. 

    20. Sharma, P.P., Vyas, M. and Meghawal, D.R., (2017). Estimation of genetic variability and correlation analysis in field pea (Pisum sativum L.) genotypes. Journal of Plant Development Sciences. 9(1): 53-56.

    21. Singh, S., Verma, V., Singh, B., Sharma, V.R. and Kumar, M. (2019). Genetic variability, heritability and genetic advance studies in pea (Pisum sativum L.) for quantitative characters. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 53(5): 542-547. doi: 10.18805/IJARe.A-5245.

    22. Singh, H., Singh, M. and Brar, P.S. (2005). Heterosis and combining ability studies for economic traits in genetically diverse lines of garden pea (Pisum sativum L.). Crop Improvement- India. 32(1): 78.

    23. Sprague, G.F. and Tatum, L.A. (1942). General vs. specific combining ability in single crosses of corn. Journal of the American Society of Agronomy. 34(10): 923-932.

    24. Vennela, M. (2023). Genetic variability, heritability and genetic advance studies in field pea (Pisum sativum L.) for yield and its attributing traits. Int. J. Environ. Clim. Change. 13(8):  2190-2197.

    25. Yadav, B., Sao, A. and Gauraha, D. (2019). Combining ability analysis for yield and attributing traits in field pea (Pisum sativum L.). Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 8(6): 1976- 1981.

    26. Yadav, I., Sharma, V., Kumar, M., Yadav, L.P., Mishra, A., Singh, V., Singh, D.P., Yadav, A., Yadav, M., Singh, S.K. and Kamaluddin. (2023). Assessment of gene action and identification of heterotic hybrids for enhancing yield in field pea. Horticulturae.  9(9): 997.
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us
      Published In
      Legume Research

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)