GENETIC VARIABILITY, CORRELATION AND PATH CO-EFFICIENT ANALYSIS FOR YIELE) AND YIELI) CONTRII3IITIN(; CHARACTERS

GENETIC VARIABILITY, CORRELATION AND PATH CO-EFFICIENT ANALYSIS FOR YIELE) AND YIELI) CONTRII3IITIN(; CHARACTERS

IN CHICKI'EA (Cicer uric/mum

^14.)

BY

ASIF IQBAL SAKI REGISTRATION NO. 23933/00175

A Thesis

Subniitted to I he l:aeuIty ol' Agriculture Sher-e-I3angla Agricultural I Iniversity. I )haka

in parlial liii filInieni nI the reqiiircnicnts for the degree of

MA5cI'ER OF SCIENCE IN

GENETICS AND PLANT BREEDING SEMESTER: .ItJI2Y-I)ECEMI3ER 2006

Approved by:

r

( Dr. Md. Shaltidul Alam ) ( Prof. Dr. Mti Shahidur Rashid Bhuiyau )

Sit pe rviso r Co-sn pervisor

(Dr. Md. Sarowar I lossain

CERTI FICATE

This is to certify that thesis entitled. "cENErIC VARIABILITY,

COI4ItELAIION AND PAIl) (o-I•:FFIUIENI ANALYSIS FOR YIELD AND YIELD

CONTRIBuTING ('IIARA("FERS IN ChICKPEA (fleer ari.'iinun: L)' submitted to the Faculty of Agriculture. Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural I Jriiversity. Dhaka, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in GENETICS AND PLANT BREEDING, emhodies the result

of a piece of hona tIc/c research work carried Out by AS! F IQBAL SAKI,

Registration No. 23933/001 75 under my supervision and guidance. No part of the thesis has been submitted for any other degree or diploma.

T further eerti' that such help or source olin Formation, as has been availed of during the course of this investigation has duly been acknowledged.

Dated:

Dhaka, Bangladesh

( Dr. Md..Shaliidul Alam ) former ('hid Scient i tic ()t'ticer

Plant Breeding Division.

BAR), Gaxipur Sn pervisor

DEDICATED TO MY

HEAVENLY MOTHER

i

^•

SYMBOLS ANI) ABBREViATIONS

whçaL)(j PB

Full Word Al)l)reviatlon

Analysis of Variance

Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics

Bangladesh Agricultural Research Instituic Centimeter

Co-efficient of variation

Environmental co-efficient, of variation Figure

Genetic advance

Genotypic coefficient of variation Grain

Hectare

Heritability in broad sense Journal

Millimeter

Mcmi Sum of Square

Phenotypic co-efficient of variation Randomized Complete Block l)csign Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University

ANOVA B B S BARI

cm cv ECV

l'ig GA CCV

g ha h2b

J mm MS PCV RCBI)

SAU

'Die author is ever grate frI of.27lnuqfitv ,4lIah RaRfiui (ani in kr his blessings to enable him to cany out this rcscazvfi workjvu{ complete this thesis.

,The author ckems it a prout privilege to express his heartfelt respect, unfettered grat ifi cation, profounL i'egart{ and' immense infebtethzess to his respectable Supervisor, 'Dr. Md Shahidijl ;4th,,,, former chief scientific Officer and 9(ead 'Plant (Breeding (Division, (ianglatesfi )lgncu(lura( riesearcfi Institute for his

in: mense 1quiclance. c.'aIi,abfr atvice,

^i/Tn

unnati ig suggest

ions,

construct tue criticism ant pain.staIng reading through the ,nanuscrzt _frr the successjiil completion of this Eunible wor&

'lEe author expresses his Leep gratitute to Ills Co-supervisor, ®r. 1311 5hal:itur 'Rszshicf tiJhusj'an, ;Pa?fessor; Dep:rtnscnt of çenetscs ant 'i'&nst <Breeding, Sher-e- (Bangla Agricultural 'University for his valuable ad'ice and* constructive criticism

Luring the period of research worlc

The author wou&also lik.g to tvj.e!sd his heartfelt appreciation ancftliankfulness to the Chairman, (Dr. f)Wd ,Sarowar f/[ossain,, (Department of çenetics and Plant 'Breeding, S4 U, (Dhakg for co rzst ructwe cr11 icism a nd va hia 6Th a€h'ice.

'rile author express his heartfelt tha,zky anti gratiiva'e to his esteemed teachers jissistant (Professor Firoz 131aIirnud Lecturer jamilur cNahma,, and %oliammaf sa!/il( Islam, (Department of qeitetics and Plant (Breeding, She r-e-cflangla .flgricultura( university for their constant cooperation, encouragement ant god

wishes Luring the work

'The author is intebt to (Dr. i311 fibu (Baker and SMI )lliAfzalof (Banglafesh

Agnculturalcesearch Institute 43A 'N/1 joydè6purforsupp5'ing the materials and

cilia n&s are e4endW to Izisfricnds Zaijir, 9sli(on, Sath Sauim and74 sadfor their direct atuf indirect fle(p.

ciflatika are atso e.tte,;óf to ?Cjianciak,çr &i-toIzam:naf fthi:7i1 Islam for his sincere help in computer composing anti printing ofthe thesis.

Lastly the autliorfeets compfete& ineffable to express fl/s pmfoumf regaris to his flu/icr 'Dr. 94C1 V6aidt( .7(aquc, 'ljrotflers Molza::i:iiaiMC fMizan, Zunaif ant (Bayazid wife Sal/a, aunt S/i ilpee, ?JncTh j[afiifi eZ &'dafia6u& cousin Shati

TomaC SMtituC ?*Comolandtwe(C wishers who always inspirctiulim with the best of

their wishes ant! provicied7iin: with the best qfevety thing in his 4fe.

(Decem 6cr, 2006 qfleutflor

GENETIC VARIABILITY, CORRlLKrJoN AND PATh (,()-EFflCIENT ANALYSIS FOR YIELD AND YIELD CONTRIBUTING CHARACTERS IN

CIIICKPEA

(Ocer aru'Iinuu, L)

IlY

ASH' IQHAL SAId

A I3STRA( 'T

Forty genotypes of chickpea (('leer aridUnmu F..) were studied in a Field nperiment Ct)Iklticteci at the experimental Field ''I RARI .iodebpnr, (ltlrinL: the )ear 2004-2005. A randomized complete block design having three replications were lollowed. The ohjectivcs oF the study we.e to rileusuic he variability among the genolvpes for yield and yield contributing characters, estimate genetic parameters, association among the characters and their contribut 101) to yield. Significant genetic vari:itiotis were observed thr days to Ilover. plant height. number ol' branches per plant. number oF pods per plant. 100- seed weight and seed yield per plant. I lighest genotypic variability was observed in number of seed yield ibllowed by nunther of pods per plant and branches per plant whereas days to maturity showed lowest genotvpic co-elficiejn of' variability. In all cases.

phenotvpic variances were higher than the genotvpic ones. II hzh lieritabi lit) and high genetic advance in percent of mean were thund in seed yield per plant, pods per plant, lOO-seed weight and dry weight per plant which indicates that selection could he etThctive br these traits. Considerable heritability was observed in pod length. seeds per pod and days to Ilowering and lowest lien tabi Ii tv was observed in days to pod tuat _Liii ty followed by plant height. The results obtained, showed that seed yield per plant had positive and significant relation with branches per plant and pods per plant. Number of pods per plant were positively correlated with branches per plant but negatively correlated with plant height and days to first flowering. I luitdred seed weight had significant and positive correlation with days to first flowering, dry weight per plant and pod length but had negative correlation with pods per plant and seeds per pod. Days to first flowering, pod length. pods per plant. dry weight per plant had high positive direct elThct on the yield .So.

days to first flowering, pods per plant. pod letigtli. branches per plant and dry weight per plant are found the important characters and could he used on direct selection lr yield.

(ieiuotvpes C'l'M-SôO. ( 'PNl-X-j, htlNA elnla-3, HARt ('hula-I 15ARI ('liula-7 showed better performance in all aspects indicating the possibility of using these in Future breeding programme.

LIST OI' (2ON'FFNFs

Chapter Title

Page

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ACKNOWLFDGEMENT ii

A BSI'RACI' iv

LIST OF CONTENTS v

LIST OF TABLES ix

LIST OF FIGURES

_X

LIST OF APPENDICES xii

INTRODUCTION 1

REVIEW OF UTERAI'URE 7

2.1 Common Names 7

2.2 Scientific Names 7

2.3 Uses 7

2.4 Chemistry 8

2.5 i'raditional Medicinal Uses JO

2.6 Origin 10

2.7 'Faxonoirty, Morphology and Floral Biology II

2.8 Fcology 12

2.9 Crop Culture 13

2.9.1 Field (.'uliivatioii 13

2.9,2 Harvesting 14

2.10 Yields and Economics

ta n 15

LIST OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Chapter Title Page

Chapter

3

2.11 Biotic Factors 16

2.12 Germplasm 18

2.13 Variability Studies 19

2.14 Genetic Parameters Studies 24

2.14.1 (lenotypic and phenotypic co-etlicient olvariation 24

2.14.2 1 Leritability 27

2.14.3 Genetic advance 30

2.15 Correlation studies 32

2.16 Path analysis 40

MATERIALS AND METHODS 46

3.1 Experimental site and experimental period 46

3.2 Climate and soil 46

3.3 Plant materials 47

3.4 l)esign and layout 49

3.5 Land preparation 49

3.6 Fertilizer application 49

3.7 Irrigation 50

3.8 Intercultural operation 50

3.9 Harvesting 50

3.10 Recording of data 50

3.10.1 I'Iaiit pigmentation 51

3.10.2 Growth habit 51

LIST OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Chapter

-

Title -

-

Page

3.10.3 Leafco!or 51

3.10.4 Flowercolor 51

3.10. 5 Days to lirst flowering (DFF) 52

3.10.6 Days to 50% tlowering(DF)

52

3.10.7 Days to maturity (DM) 52

3.10. 8 Plant height (PH) 53

3.10. 9 Dry matter weight of plant

(D\V)

53 3.10. 10 Number of branches per plant (liP) 53

3.10.11 Pods per plant (1 1 1)) 53

3.10.12 Pod length (P1.) 53

3.10.13 100-seeds weight (SW) 54

3.11 Statistical analysis

54

1 (lenotypie and phenotypic variance 54 3.11.2 Genotypic and Phenotypic coefficient of

\:ariatjon

55

3.11.3 Estimation of Heritability

55

3.11.4 Estimation of Genetic advance 56

3.11.5 Correlation Coefficient

56

3. I I .6 Path Coefficient analysis

57

LIST 01' CONI'EN'l'S (Coii(in;icd)

Page

Chapter Title

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS ANt) I)ISCIJSSION

4.1 Qualitative characters of chickpea 4.2 Analysis of variance and components of

variation ( (ienetic Parameters) 4.2.1 Days to first Ilowering (DFP)

4.2.2 Days to 50% flowering (DF) 4.2.3 I)avs to m:iltirity (I)N4) 4.2.4 Plant heighl (P11)

4.2.5 1)1)' weight oF plant (l)W) 4.2.6 Branches per plant (1W) 4.2.7 Pods per plant (VP) 4.2.8 Seeds per pod (SP) 4.2.9 Pod length (P14

4.2.10 100 seed weight (S\V) 4.2.1 1 Seed yield per plant (SY)

4.3 Correlation studies 4.4 Path coefficient analysis

CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION CHAPTER 6 REFER ENCES

APPENDICES

59 59

61

62

63

69

71

73

75

77

79

79

82

84

86

90

95

98

120

LIST OF TABLES

Table Title Page

Table 1. List of the genotypes used in the experiment 48 Table 2. Qualitative characters of 40 chickpea genotypes 60 Table 3. Mean peribi-mance of ditiërent characters of chickpea

genotypes 66

Table 4. Estimation of statistical and genctical parameters of

characters for di1flreiu genotypes olchickpea. 68 Table 5. Correlation coelticients among different characters for

forty genotypes of chickpea 89

Table 6. Path coefficient showing direct (hold value) and indirect

effects of different characters on yield in chickpea 94

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Title Page

Fig. I a. Relative perthrmance of (irst twenty genotypes of chickpea

for days to first (lowering 64

Fig. I h. Relative performance of rest twenty genotypes at chickpea

br

(lilYS

to first lloweriiig 64

Fig. 2 a. Relative perfbrmance of first twenty genotypes of chickpea

for days to 50% flowering 65

Fig. 2 h. Relative perloririance of rest twenty genotypes of chickpea

(or days to 50% flowering 65

Fig. 3 a. Relative performance of first twenty genotypes of chickpea

for days to maturity 70

Fig. 3 b. Relative performance of rest twenty genotypes of chickpea

for days to maturity 70

Fig. 4 a. Relative performance of first twenty genotypes olchickpea

for plant height 72

Fig. 4 b. Relative performance of rest twenty genotypes of chickpea

for plant height 72

Fig. 5 a. Relative performance of first twenty genotypes of chickpea

for thy weight per plant 74

Fig. 5 ft Relative performance of rest twenty genotypes of chickpea

for dry weight per plant 74

Fig. 6 a. Relative performance of first twenty genotypes of chickpea

fin n ii in bet o I hra iic lies per 1)1 ant 76 Fig. 6 b. Relative performance of rest twenty genotypes of chickpea

for number of branches per plant 76

Fig. 7 a. Relative peribrniaiice of first twenty gcr%olvpcs of chick

[)C1

for number of pods per plant 78

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

- - - lie - -

Page Fig. 7 b.

Relative performance of rest twenty genotypes olchickpca number olpods pcl plaiii for

j?jg S a. Relative perlbrmance of tirsE twenty genotypes of chickpea for 7 number of seeds per pod

80 Fig. 8 b. Relative peribrinanee of'resr twenty genotypes of chickpea for

number of seeds per pod

80 Fig. 9 a. Relative performance of first twenty genotypes of chickpea for

pod length

8 I Fig. 9 h. Relative performance of lest _I wenly genty opes of cli iekpea for

pod length

81 Fig. 10 a. Relative peribrinance ol rest twenty genotypes of,

chickpea for I OOseed weight

83 Fig. 10 b. Relative performance of rest twenty genotypes of chickpea for

l0Osccd weight

83 Fig. II a. Relative perlormauce of first 1\verity genotypes of chickpea for

seed yield per plant

85 Fig. 11 b. Relative performance of rest twenty genotypes of chickpea for

seed yield per plant

85

LIST OF APPEN DICES

Appendices Title Page

Appendix I. Monthly record of air temperature, rainthil, relative humidity and sunshine during the period from November

2004 to May 2005. 120

Appendix II. Analysis of variance for yield and yield contributing

characters in chickpea 121

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Chickpea, Cicer uric/inn/n I . belongs to the lamilv Fahaceac, sub thniily papilionaceas42n = 16). On the basis of cultivated area. chickpea rank 19111 among the crops and is grown in 34 countries oF the world. Area under pulses in India. Pakistan. Nepal and Bangladesh covers about 90% of the world average (Saxena. 2001). In Bangladesh chickpea is the third major pulse crop after grass pea (Khesari) and lentil (Islam c/ ^ul. 1981 and Anon. 1999). Pulses cover about 546.742 ha of cultivated area of Bangladesh of which chickpea covers 15.378 ha in 2001, which produced II .00(1 metric tons (ml) with in average yield 0.12 mt'ha (13135. 2002).

Chickpea is the second most important pulse crop in tile world alicr dry bean.

As well as beiiiu an important source ol huiiiari ¹⁰⁰⁽¹ and animal teed, it also helps to improve soil fertility. particularly in drylands. The introduction of chickpea in a cereal-based rotation, which is used particularly in developing countries, can break the disease and pest cycle, and increase ^I lie productivity 01

the entire rotation (Jodha and Subba Rao. 1987).

Chickpea with its protein content of about 22% ( Aluned. 1994) and high level of limiting amino acids particularly lysine provides a valuable protein source in

balance diet. Although pulses are the cheapest source of' protein, daily per capita consumption ol pulse in l3angladesh is only I Og as against 45g in India (Ahmcd, 1994). Cultivation ol chickpea has a great value in agriculture as it helps to add atmospheric nitrogen in soil through the process of symbiosis (Sharma and Jodha. 2001 ).

Chickpea is a very economical source of quality plant protein food. It is used in a vide variety of' dishes and snacks around the world. In North America.

Kubuli chickpeas arc a popular item in bean salads and restaurant salad bars and have now found their way into speciality health food shops in developed countries. In the I ndo-Pak istan subcontinent and around the Mediterranean, they are mainly roasted, boiled, or fried and are used as the central ingredient in main dishes. The seeds can be eaten whole, split and decorticated (dal). or ground as flour (basan). The shoots and green leaves are even cooked and eaten as green vegetables.

Chickpea is extremely important as a source of protein. According to World I Iealth Organization (WI 10) standards, the combined amino acid content of

food mix of ^{%\ rli}e.t and chickpea at a ratio of 67:33 percent makes wheat chickpea bread a perfect protein, providing more than 85% of all amino acids required. A mix of rice and chickpea. 75:25, also makes the amino acid content almost perket. The nutritional eomplementarilv of chickpea with wheat and rice, the two most important cereals consumed in Pakistan.

underscores the importance of concentrated development o1 this most important pulse crop.

The total protein supply in our expanding population is ckcreasing day by day. So we should increase the supply of protein. A pail of this problem can be solved by increasing the per heelare production of the crop chickpea. The soil and climatic condition olBangladesh is suitable lbr growing chickpea in winter (rahi) season. Recently different varieties of this crop have been introduccd in Bangladesh. The available infhrniation on adaptability, growth etc. of the several of these varieties tinder the environment of Bangladesh indicates that the crop can be gown successfully by using proper cultural practices. Unlortunatelv. very limited work has been done for the improvement of the crop in our country. Development of high yielding

varieties

with other desirable characters is urgeiulv needed to make this crop prohtahle to the growers. Like oilier crops chickpea can also be improved for yield and yield contributing characters through appropriate breeding programmes.

Seed yield is a complex character, which is affected by a large number of

yield coniporients. ('arelli I selection of desirable Intl i v idna k may lead to the

discovery of lines with higher yield than the original variety. Environment

has a great effect upon many of the economically important characters,

which are often controlled by many genes. The progress in such a breeding

population is conditioned by the nature, magnitude and interrelationship of' genotypic and environmental variations in the plant characters. It then

beconic necessarY to parlitum the observed variability iiitc' ^iis heritable and

non-heritable components with the help of suitable genetic parameters such as genetic co-efficient of variation. heritability estimates genetic advance etc.

The degree to which the association of plant characters determined by the correlation co-efficients is helpful for selection of desirable characters under a breeding programme. The measurement of correlation of co-efficient between the characters is a matter of considerable importance in selection practices which help in the construction of selection indices and also permits the prediction of correlated rcsponsc (Lerner. 1985). Many workers have reported wide area of work about correlation co-ellicieni (Sandhu

^{ci a/i}

1972, Bail ci

^aL

1977. Khoskhui and Nikncjad, 1972, Islam

^{ci at}

1984, Shahi ci al. 1984.).

The estimates of path co-efficient analysis are important to the better

understanding of the crop. It gives specific mcasnres of the direct and

indirect effect of each component character under seed yield (Sing ci

at 1976; Singh ci

^at

1978; Katiyar

^dat

1979).

Besides the selection of superior lines/varieties through studies of variation, correlation and path co-eflicient analysis. the score index used by many scientists (Rubaihavo. 1976: Kabir and Rahman. I 9X0:Singh and Singh.

1974; Patra, 1980; Rahman, 1980 and Rahrnan ci al. 1982) can also be used for the selection of better varieties/lines along with the studies of variability correlation and path co-cflicicnt analysis.

Yield is the complex end product of many thctors which jointly or singly influence the seed yield. Chickpea yield is dependent on many important characters as well as on the environmental influence. For yield improvement it is essential to have knowledge on genetic variability of a biological population is an outcome of genetic constitution of the individuals making that population in relation to prevailing cnvinninenl. A survey ofgcnctic variability with the help of suitable parameters such as genotypic co- efficient of variation, heritability and genetic advance are absolutely necessary to start an efficient breeding programme.

The study of character is also essential for ascertaining their contribution

towards yield. Direct and indirect effects of yield contributing characters on

yield are also important in selecting high yielding genotypes. Path co-

efficient analysis is used to detect characters having direct and indirect

effects on yield.

The purpose of this study Was:

I. To evaluate the performance of 40 chickpea genotypes for yield and yield

^coffi

ri hut i iig characters

To study the variability for yield and yield contributing characters

To study heritability and genetic advance for yield and yield contributing characters

To assess the relationship of yield and different yield contributing characters

5. To find out the best genotypes for further use in breeding program

To observe the mutual relationship of' di licretit morphological characters and also the type and extent oHheir contributions to yield

To choose characters that can he used as selection criteria in chickpea

breeding Ibr yield

Il:

It

,", Y I-I

I

CHAPTER

2

REVIEW OF LITEI4ATLi 141:

Chickpea is one the most important pulse crop in Bangladesh and in many countries olihe world. ike crop has received much altention by a large number of researchers on various aspects ol its production and utili,.ation.

2.1 Common Names

l3engal gram (Indian). Chickpea (English). (iarbanzo (I ,atin America), I loiiiuues, I laiiiaz (Arab orld). Nohud. I .ablahi (turkey). Shimhra (Ethiopia)

2.2 Scientific Names

Species: Cicer arietipluIn I

Family: Fahaceac

2.3 Uses

Chickpea is grown in tropical, sub-tropical and temperate regions. Kahuli Iy'pe is grown in temperate regions while the desi type chickpea is grown in the semi-arid tropics (Mticlilhaiier and Singli. 1987: Malhotra (l at. 1987).

Chickpea is valued br its nutritive seeds with high protein content, 25.3 - 28.9

%, alter deluilling (I Itilse. 1991). Chickpea seeds are eaten fresh as green vegetables, parched. fried, roasted, and hoi led: as snack lood, sweet and

condiments- seeds are ground and the flour can be used as soup, dhal, and to make bread: prepared with pepper, salt and lemon. Ii is served as a side dish (Saxena. 2001). DIml is the split chickpea without its sccdcoat. dried and cooked into a thick soup or ground into hour fbr snacks and sweetnicats (Saxena. 1990: Hulse. 1991 ). Sprouted seeds arc Cairn as -a vr,tetahle or added to salads. Young plants and green pods are eaten like spinach. A small proportion of canned chickpea is also used in lurkey and I at in Aiiierica to produce fermented food. Animal feed is another use of chickpea in many developing cotlntries. An adhesive may also be prepared: although not water- resistant, it is suitable 11w plywood. Grani husks. and 1-1cm ui 'Iried stems anti leaves are used for stock Iced: whole seeds may be milled directly for tied.

I ciives are Sn iii to \'jCId an I ndieo-1 ike dye. Acid cxiicl;itcs Iro;ii the leaves can be applied medicinally or used as vinegar. I ii ('bile, a cooked chickpea-milk (4:1) mixture was good for ficdirig infants. cifectively conirolling diarrhea.

('hickpcas yield 21 % starch suitable ('or (cxiilc suing. giviiu a light hinish to silk, wool, and cotton cloth (1)uke, 1981).

2.4 Chemistry

Chickpea seed has 38-59% carbohydrate. 3% fiber. 4.8-5.5% oil. 3% ash. 0.2%

calcium, and 0.3% phosphorus. Digestibility of protein varies from 76-78% and its carbohydrate from 57-60%. (I lulse. 1991. 1-luisman and van der pod. 1994).

Raw whole seeds contain per 100 g: 357 calories, 4.5-15.69% moisture, 14.9- 24.6 g protein. 0.8-6.4 % fat. 2.1-11.7 g fiber. 2-4.8 g ash. 140-440 mg Ca.

190-382 mg P. 5.0-23. 9 mg Fe. 0-225 pi g /1-carotene equivalent. (}.21-1.1 rig thiamin, 0.12-0.33 mg riboflavin, and 1.3-2.9 trig niacin (Duke. 1981; Huisman and vaji tier Pod, 1994). 'Uoilt'cj and toasieci seeds contain similar amoun.

Sprouting is said to increase (he proporlionate amotinis ol ascorbic acid, niacin.

available iron. choline, tocopherol. panlot henic acid. hiotin. pyridoxine.

inositol, and vitamin K. Wild species olien have similar glandular secretions' (Duke, 1981). The limiting amino acid concentrations are 0.52 Ibr methionine.

1.45 for lysine and cystine. 0.71 for tlircoriine and 0.16 lbr trypiophan (Williams

et aL,

1994). The amino acid composition of seeds with 19.5%

protein. 5.5% oil is (per lb g N): 7.2 it lysine. 1.4 g nicthioninc, 8.8 g arginine,

4.0 g glycine. 2.3 g histidinc. 4.4 g isoleucinc. 7.6 g leucine, 6.6 g

phenylalanine. 3.3 g tyrosinc, 3.5 g thrconinc. 4.6 g valinc. 4.1 g alaninc. 11.7 g

aspartie acid. 16.0 g glutamic acid. 0.0 g hydroxvproi;ne. 4.3 ii proline. and 5.2

g scrine" (Duke. 1 981; II uisjnan and van der pod. 1994; and Williams et al.,

1994). "Percent fatty acid compositions are: 'Desi': oleic 52.1. linolcic 38.0,

myristie 2.74. pactic 5.11, and steatic 2.05: 'Kahuli': olew 50.3, linoleic 40.0,

myristic 2.28. palrnitic 5.74. stcaric 1.61. and arachidic 0.07?/. The leaves

contain 4-8% protein" (Duke. 1981).

2.5 Traditional Medicinal Uses

Among the Ibod legtinics. chickpea is the most hvpocholestereniie agent:

geriniziated chickpea was reported to be eficciive in controlling cholesterol level in rats (Geervaiti, 1991). "Glandular secretion ()f (lie leaves, sterns, and

pods consists of nialic and oxalic acids, giving a sour taste. In India these acids used to be harvested by spreading thin muslin over the crop during the night. In the morning the soaked cloth is wrung out, and the acids are collected in bottles. Medicinal applications include use for aphrodisiac. bronchitis, catarrh, eutarnenia, cholera, consLipation, diarrhea. dyspepsia. Ilaculence. snakebite, sunstroke, and warts. Acids are supposed to lower the blood cholesterol levels.

Seeds are considered antihiliouslt (Duke, 1981).

2.6 Origin

Van der Macsen (1972) believed that the species originated in the southern Caucasus and northern Persia. Ilowever, I adii.inskv. (1975) I'eporIc(I the cejiler

of origin to be sotulicasern Turkey. Van dci Macsen (1987) recognized the southeastern part of i'urkey adloining Syria as the possible center of origin of chickpea based on tile presence of the closely related ;innua I species. C ref ku/agiwi Ladizinsky and C echinosper,num P.11. Davis. Wild C relieu/agu,n is interfertile with the cultivated pulse and nnorphologieallv closely resembles etiltivaLed C. ancVniewi. It is regarded as the wild progeniLor of chickpea

(Ladizinsky, 1975). "Botanical and archeological evidence show that chickpeas

Mediterranean area. the Middle Fast. and Fthiopia since antiquity. Brought to the New World. it is now uportailt iii Mexico. Argeittilia. :hik. l'erti and the U.S. Also important in ,\ustralia. Wild species are most abundant in i'urkey, Into, Atidmiiistan. and ('ejitnil Asia" ( Duke. 1981).

2.7 Taxonomy, Morphology and Floral Biology

Cicer. which was classi lied tinder Vicieae AId., was later reported to belong to the monogencric tribe, Cicercac. The Genus includes 9 annuals and 34 perennial herbs (Van der Maeseii, 1972: and Muehlbauer. 1993). Crossability and fertility of hybrids in iaiterspeci tic crosses have been used as a basis to classify the annuals into 4 crossability groups. The lirsi group includes the

cultivated chickpea (Cicer arietbiwn 1..) (Ladizinsky ci at. 1988) and C.

rcticulaiu,n. Chickpea plants can he described as "stems are branched, erect or spreadin8. sometimes shrubby much branched, 0.2-I iii tall, glandular pubescent, olive, dark green or bluish green in color. Root system is robust. up to 2 in deep, but niaior portion up to 60 cm. Leaves imparipinnate, glandular- pubescent with 3-8 pairs of leaflets and a top leaflet (rachis ending in a leal1et) leaflets ovate to elliptic. 0.6-2.0 cm long. 0.3-1.4 cm wide: margin serrate, apex acuminate to aristate, base cuneate: stipules 2-5 toothed. stipules absent.

1:lt)wers solitary, soinetiiiies 2 per inlloreseeiice, axillary: Petlulicles 0.6-3 cm loruz. peducels 0.5-1.3 ciii lung. bracts triangular or irijiai'iiie: calx 7- It) miii long; corolla white, pink. purplish ( thding to bluc). or blue. 0.8-1.2 cm long.

The siaminal column is ti iadelphoris (9- I ) mid I lie ovary is sessi Ic. in Hated and

pubescent" (Duke. 1981: (_uhero. 1987: vaIl tier Macsen. 1987). Pod rhomboid ellipsoid. 1-2 with three seeds as a max i iniint and in haled, glandular- puhescent. Seed color cream, Nellow. bnnvn, black, or ureen. rounded to angular, seedcoat smooth or wrinkled, or tubercul;ite. laterally compressed with a median groove around two-thirds of' the seed, anterior henked: germination eryptocotylar (Duke. 1981: Cubero. 1987 Van tier Macsen. 1987).

2.8 Ecology

Chickpea is ^it sell-pollinated crop. CrOSs-J)OhliIUItiOI1 is rare: 0111)' 0-I % is reported (Singh. 1987: Smithson c/ al., 1995). ( ,rown LISIIaIIV as it rainled cool- weather crop or as a dry climate crop in semi-arid regions. Optimum conditions include 18-26°C day and 21 -2C night temperatures and annual rainfall of 600-1000 mm (Duke. 1981: Muehlbauer ci at. 1988; Smithson ci at, 1985).

The Palousc region of' the states Washington and Idaho. appears to he well suited to chickpea and can be characterized as having 18-25t during the day and 5- lOT during the night and ;t st,fhicicntiv lung growing season (Muehlbauer ci at, 1982). Cahilbriiia is very suited to (lie chickpea crop and it has thrived in the coastal areas and in the Cent nil VziI 1ev. lhrivcs on a sunny sue in ^it cool. dr) ci iniate on wel I-drained soils and grows on a residual moisture in the post-rains' seasons of sub tropical winier or spring of' the northern hemisphere (Smilhson ci at. 1985). "Generally grown on heavy black or red soils p11 5.5-8.6. lm'ost. hailstones. and excessive ruins damage the crop.

Though sensitive to cold, some cultivars can tolerate temperatures as low as -

9.5°C in early stages or tinder snow cover. l)aily temperature fluctuations are desired with cold nights wiLti dew

th

II. Rehit lye htiiuiidity of' 2 I -4 I % is optimum for seed setting. In virgin sandy soils or fbr the lirst planting in heavier soils, inoculation is said to increase yield by 10-62%" (1)uke. 1981). Although spoken of as "day-neutral." chickpea is a quantitaIi e long-day plant, but flowers in every photoperioci (Smithson ci

^(1/..

1985).

2.9 Crop Culture

2.9.1 Field Cultivation

Chickpeas are propagated from seeds. "Seed is broadcast or (more often) drilled in rows 25-60 cm apart, spaced at 1 0 em between seeds, at a depth of 2- 12 em with soil well pressed down. Soil is worked into a rough tilth, clods broken and field- leveled. Secd is sown in spring (talc M;ireli-niid April in Turkey. United States: February-March-April around the Mediterranean) when the ground has warmed or when the rains recede (mid-September to November, rarely later in India and Pakistan: September-January or April. Ethiopia) depending on the region" (SniiLhson ci at. 1985). Seeding rates vary ['ruin 25- 40 kg/ha to 80-120 kg/ha, depending on the area and seed type (Smithson ci at.

1985). Chickpea may he cultivated as a sole crop, or mixed with barley,

lathyrus (grasspca). linseed, mustard, peas. corn, coffee, safflower, potato,

sweet potato, sorghum. or wheat. In rotation it oflen Ibllows wheat. barley, rice

(Van der Macsen. 1972). "In India, chickpeas are also grown as a catch crop in

sugarcane fields and often as a second crop afler rice. Although usually considered it dry-land crop. chickpeas develop vell on rice lantis.

In most areas, chickpeas are intercultivated 011CC about 3-4 weeks after sowing;

thereafter, the crop develops enou&h shade to smother Weeds. In other areas light weedings are recommended. On poor Soils, niaiiiire or conipost is beneficial. Seed itioculation improves vieW only (or crops i'own for the first time or after rice, where /?I,i:obiu,,, populations are natural I) low or absent.

Irrigation at 45 and 75 days after planting is useful (Duke. 1981). Fcrtilizers or manure have often Ihiled to increase yields substantially because of fixation of P by soils mu) (he aecunitil;ttioii of nutrients in the tipper lavei21iIl1e soil which

j;_ \• _"Vs are often dry (Smithson ci ut, 1985).

2.9.2 Harvesting

Chickpeas mature in 3-7 months and the leaves turn brown/yellow during maturity. For dry seeds, the plants are harvested at maturity or slightly earlier by cutting them close to the ground or uprooting. The plants are stacked in the field lbr it few days to dry and later the crop is threshed by trampling or beating with wooden flails. The chat]' is separated from the grain 1w innowing. Tall ciii Livars are suitable Inc uiieehanized han'estinig in which case combines can he used. Chickpeas are usually stored in bags. but are more subject to insect daiiiage than when stored in bulk. Proper cleaning. drying. and aeration are necessary to control seed beetles. A thin coating with vegetable oil can reduce

storage damage. Sometimes baskets, made from twisted rice straw, are used as storage containers.

2.10 Yields and Economics

Greater and more stable yields are the niajor goals ol' plant breeding programme. Chickpea yields usually average 400-600 kg/ha. but can surpass 2,000 kg/ha, and in experiments have attained 5,200 kg/ha. Yields from irrigated crops are 20-28% higher than yields from rainfed crops. Two types of chickpea are recognized. desi (colored, sinai] seeded. angular and fibrous) and kahuli (beige. large seeded, rams-head shaped with lower liher content) types (Malhotra c/ at, 1987). In a 3-cultivar trial in India. dry matter yields ranged From 9,400 to 12,000 kg/ha. In India, chickpea or grain ranks 5th among grain crops, and is the most ictiportacit pulse crop ( Smitlisom, ci at. 1985). In India and Pakistan. chickpeas are consumed locally, and ahout 56% of the crop is

retained by grOeN (I )tike. 1981). In t Jnilcd States and I tmrope. chickpeas are

marketed dried, canned, or in various vegetable mixUires. In Iuropc, mashed chickpeas from the Mediterranean are sold canned. Mashed chickpea mixed with oils and spices (huninius) is a popular hors d'oeuvre in Ilie Mediterranean Middle East (Dukc. 1981). In 1975 to 1994, on the average. Asia produced 5-

6,000,000 Ml'. yields ranging from 570-766 kg/ha. led by India, which produced 4-5,000,000 Mt', ranging from 500-900 kg/ha; Africa produced 250- 364.000 MT, with yields ranging from 600-660 kg/ha. North and Central

produced 50-118,000 MT, while averaging 750 kg/In (FAQ, 1976, 1994). The major chickpea growing countries are India. Pakistan, and Turkey in Asia, Ethiopia in Africa. California and \Vashington state in the ILS.. Mexico and Australia (FAO, 1994). Chickpea production increased from 1980 to 1990 by about a mit lion tons (at 1.8 % annual lv), and there was a 5.6 % increase in yield over the decade (Oram. P.A. and M. Agcaoili, 1994). Further increases in yield could be attained from the use of germplasm/wild relatives, for identification of new genes. and from new coinbinat ions of livorable genes already existing (Muelilhaucr at at, 1988).

2.11 Biotic Factors

The main fungi that affect chickpea are Pusarium oxysporum Schlechtcnd. Fr.

f. sp. c/cans (Padwick) Maluo & K. Sato, causing the plant to wilt and

Ascochna blight caused by tixcoc/zyta rahwi. Asroe/;jiu blight is the most

serious disease in North India. Pakistan. the U.S. and the Middle East (sometimes causing 100% losses) (Smithson ci al., 1985). Blight causes brown spots on leaves, stems, pods and seeds (Kaiser. 1992). Other Iizngi known to attack chickpea include teal' spot (Aliern(jnia sj).). Ascoc/ivia pisi, rust

(Uromyces ciccnis-anienilni), gray mould (/3otrvtis cinerci). powdery mildew (Leviellula taunica). Pythiunz dcbar-ya,unn, P. ulti,num. dry root rot (Rhizocionia baiwicola. R.solani, fbot rot (Scicrotiwn rof/.ii), Scierotinia

SC/c',aIFc)nl//)I.

wilt I ?wiici//il,/,i e,/bo-c,trwn ). Some of these Ilijigi may become

of economic importance. Viruses isolated from chickpea include alfalfa

mosaic, pea enation mosaic, pea leaf roll, pea streak, bean yellow mosaic, and cucumber mosaic (I)ukc. 1981 ; Kaiser, 1992; Smithson ci at, 1985; Van Emden ci at, 1988). Pod borer HcIicovcrm anngera), the most important pest, and feeds on leaves and developing seeds (Smithson a at, 1985).

Cutwonns (Agrotis sp.). lesser armyworms (Spodoplera aigita) and leaf minor.

Groundnut aphid (1'ip/ns craccivora). pea aphid (Acvrthsosiphon pisurn), eowpea bean seed beetle (callosobruchus inaculatus). and Adzuki bean seed beetle (C. c/mw/isis) are also important. "Many storage insects spcciltcally

/3,'uchjd sp. are a serious pest of stored chickpea. Chickpeas stored as dhal

harbor tèwer bruchids. Callosobruclius c/iuwnsis lowers seed viability. For control of bruchids, dusting with I31-IC. 1)1)1. derris. lindane. or pyrethrum or fumigation with methyl brotiide, have been recommended" (Duke. 1981). In general, estimates oF yield losses by individual pests. diseases or weeds range from 5-10 % in temperate regions and 50-100 % in tropical regions (Van Emden. 1988).

Among the abiotie factors, drought stands to be the most important problem in

major chickpea growing regions because the crop is grown on residual

moisture and the crop is eventually exposed to terminal drought (Johansen et

al., 1994). In vest Asia and North African countries, low temperature causing

freezing injury or death or delayed onset of podding reduces yield

tremendously (Singh. 1987). Heat and salinity problems are relatively

important following drought and cold stresses (Singh ci at, 1994).

2.12 Germplasm

(2hickpca ecrll)l)!astII

^is

iitaiiitziiiicd zn t\u lilLeuliatitHuLl centers ( ICRISi\T in India and ICA RIM in Syria) and at National eenlers including the Vavilov Institute in Russia. the USDA-ARS Regional Plant Introduction Station at Pullman in the U.S. and other gene banks. Tremendous variation for economically important traits has been documented and improved eultivars have been developed and released. Variation for flower and seed color and size, growTh duration, yield, and bioniass, disease resistance, quality traits (cooking time, amino acid content, flatulence and digestibility) are recorded. 'Kabul?

type chickpeas (Mediterranean and Middle Nastern origin) generally have the largest seeds, and grow well under irrigation. 1)esi chickpeas (Indian distribution) have smaller seeds, and yield better in Indian subcontinent, Nthiopia and often elsewhere. H brids between Kabtili and I )esi have produced strains with medium-size seeds and thur yields. The bulk oF chickpeas grown in developing countries are from unselected land races. tJermplasm with resistance to major diseases has been identified and genes for important diseases have been named (Muehlbauer and Singh. 1987).

Many studies on the variability. cotTelation and path co-cf hejent analysis for

different yield and yield contributing characters of chickpea have been carried

out in many countries ol Lhe world particularly in India. Bangladesh and

Pakistan. A few of the very important ones relevant to the present study are

reviewed in this chapter.

2.13 Variability Studies

A logical way to start any breeding prograllilne is to survey any variation in the avzulat,je materials.

_Muuiy

orks

11;Ivt' hceii dime In Jmiriv

researchers, some of the important ones are given below:

Shaukat el al.

(2002) studied a set of' 20 elite lines of chickpea to estimate the genetic variability for diflërcnt quantitative traits: days to (lowering, days to (lower initiation, (lay's to maturity, plant height, primary branches per plant, secondary branches per plant. total weight of plant. pods per plant and seed yield per plant. The results revealed that secondary branches per plant, total weight of plant, pods per plant and seed yield per plant reflected good response to selection. Genotype diflerences were found to he significant for all the parameters studied.

Nagaraj ci aL (2002) attempted hiparental mating in the F 2 of ICCV-10 x BG-

256 cross of chickpea (('ice ar/el/flu/n). The biparen;al population (BIP) had

better mean performance than the F3 sell's for all the characters under study.

The lower limit

01

the range was, in general. smaller for almost all the

characters in the 131 P. I he tipper Ii mi

I

had also increased in the desired

direction for all the C 'liaraders Sn Ilicient ly' high genetic variation was

maintained in the 131 P poptiial ion for most of 11w characters except for

secondary branches. BIP also exhibited improved estimates of heritability and

genetic advance. The utility of biparcntal mating in early segregating generations in chickpea is emphasized.

Chauhan and Singh

(2000)

measured the genotypic and phenotypic variability, heritability and genetic advance kw dillereiit characters in 13 chickpea elite lines, the highest variability was noted For seeds per pod.

Yadav and Sharma

(1998)

study genetic variability, heritability and genetic advance. Plant selection for number of branches per plant. 1000-seed weight and seed yield are recontinended based on (lie results.

Moussa et at (1997) evaluated RAPE) as a source ol' markers in chickpea using 196 primers to analyze an 1:6 population of $0 recombinant inbred lines derived from the cross

CA2139 N JG62.

About 40 loci were scored, and RAPDs detected consistent polymorphisms segregating in Mendelian ratios. Genome length of chickpea was estimated to be roughly 1500 eM.

Singh et at (1997) studied thirty genotypes of chickpea

(('icer ciriednurn L.)

for variability and characters association. The highest level of variability was observed (hr grains per plant. pods per plant, leaf area. harvest index (HI).

Chavan ci at (1994) evaluated seventy chickpea gcnotypcs [or 8 yield-related

traits and slated Genetic variability was greatest for pod weight per plant, pods

per plant and brandies per plant.

Bhatia ex at (1993) observed high levels of variability 11w pods per plant, branches per plant. I 00-seed weight, biological yield and seeds per pod.

Number of pod-hearing nodes had (lie highest Variai)i lii ol' the nodal characteristics. Seed yield was positively correlated with b:ological yield and harvest index.

Vijaykumar et a,'. ( 1991 ) studied 104 chickpea gcrmplasuis of diverse origin Data were collected (1w II gro' th and yield charact cis. Significantly high variation was tound beiweeri genotypes and genoi.%pc X environment interaction for all characters and between cnvironme:I[s br all characters except days to mattirity. Iii bortna( ion den 'ed lhnil (lie lieki data is given lbr genetic variance, heritability and genetic gain, train which it is suggested that seed weight. harvest index and et'bbctive pods/plant could be further improved by breeding and sclec ion.

Arora (1991) observed 40 genetically diverse genotypes Analysis of variance revealed that mean squares due to genotype were sigtiiiicanl (or all characters.

with little difference in plienotypic and aenotypic coefficients of variation (PCV and CCV), suggesting the presence of suflicient genetic variability to allow selection for individual traits. I ugh I'CV and (XV values for pods per plant. 100-seed weight and seed yield per plant, and moderately high values for plant height, canopy spread. length of pod-bearing branches, primary and secondary branches per plant, seeds per pod and harvest index indicated

relatively little cnvronrneiihil influence, suggesting that selection for these characters could he ciThetive.

Abdul ci at. (1 999) found the phenotypic and genotyptc correlation of seed vicld with number of pods per plant. number of secondaty branches, days to maturity. plant height and I 00-seed weight in 10 kabuli chickpea varieties sown in

^1985.

Genotypic differences for all the characters were highly significant.

A considerable range

^of

variability was observed by Sadhu and Mandal (1989) Ibr plant height. pod number. seed number, seed weight and seed yield in 48 diverse chickpea lines.

Chandra

(1968)

while working with chickpea linmnd wide range of variability for the elniracrer of days to flowering html Islam ci

id. (1 984)

in a study of kabuli chickpea tètind mirrow range of variability tor (his trait. Kumar c/ at.

1984) worked with 329 entries of chickpea and Ot)SeEVed variation for the character. Indu (1985) also supported the findings of Kumar ci at

⁽¹⁹⁸⁴⁾

while working with dcsi and kabuli chickpea crosses.

Islam ci at.

⁽¹⁹⁹⁴⁾

and Islam and Begum (1985) reported low variation among

the entries, for Ihe trait of days to maturity on the contrary Indu (1985) reported

high variation for this trait in chickpea.

Chandra (1968) and Siiigh clot (1974) mentioned wide range olvariability for 11w character ol plant hei.,ht in their study etnnprisiIIg 55 and 20 strains of chickpea respectivcJ'.

Joshi (1972) reported higher degrees of variation in the trait

of Primary branches per plant comprising 20 varieties of grams. Kijmar ci at (1984) with their tindings SupporLed (Ii is observation.

In chickpea variability for pods per plant were observed by Joshi (1972). Islam and lcguin (I 985) stmrwIv xIIppor:Ll the Tin(linss willi Illeir ebservation:

Gupta ci at (1972) conducted an experiment with 46 LlraI)) cultivars and obscr'ed highest variability for the character of 100-seed weight. Joshi (1972) and Singh ci ol. (1974) a iso reported wide range ol variability tor this trait in chickpea. in a trial cii (lesi ;ciid Kabul i cli ickpca crosses I tutu ( 1985) observed high variation ibr the character.

Itao (1986). in a study of role of harvest index in the breeding of grain legumes. Ibund substantial genetic variability for the trait.

Chandra (1968) obser'ed wide range of variation for the character

or

yield per plant while working with 20 indigenous and exotic types of grain. Singh ci al.

(1974) reported variability of the character from his experiments comprising 55 strains of chickpea. Lal ( 1976) working with 14 chickpea cultivars obtained

similar type of results and supported the previous findings. In the year 1984 Islam ci ^a!, while vork in with 140 '. ;uiiel ies of' kabti Ii chickpea Iuind n ide range of' variability for grain yield.

2.14 Genetic Parameters Studies

2.14.1 Geno*ypic and phenofypic co-efficient of variation:

A field experiment was conducted by Durga ^{ci at} (2003) during rahi 2000-0I to assess the phenotypic variabil it> for di 1'Icrent traits (days to 50%, flowering.

days to maturity, plant height, number of branches. number of pods. 100-seed weight. harvest index and seed yield per plant) in 13 genotypes oF chickpea.

Significant variations among genotypes were observed lbr all trails. I ,l3cG4 recorded the highest seed yield

Partap ci aL (2002) studied the phenot'.pic variability, based on difThrent quantitative characters in ⁵⁷ chickpea (C. aric'Iinum) genotypes in a field experiment conducted in Modiptiram and Meerut. tJttar Pradesh. India during I 997-fl. Path and correlation coelheieiit analysis ^WCYC used to study the

phenotypie variability in the crop. l'ositive direct effi:ct on grain yield was exerted by biological yield, number of' pods per plant and harvest index.

Parshuram ci al. (2003) evaluated sixteen chickpea eultivars 11w their genetic variability, heritability and genetic advance in terms of II yield contributing characters. Analysis of variance Iör all characters examined indicated high

genetic variability. The phenotypie coefficient ol variation ranged from 4.010%, for number of days to maturitY to 58.62% for number at seeds per plant. The genotypie coefficiont of variation was low for all characters examined except for plant height and number of leaves per plant, indicating low environmental impact for both characters.

FI-

Nimbalkar (2000) studied 40 chickpea cultivars from India. Sudan. Iran. Nepal, Spain. USA and Mexico. Observations were recorded on number of days to

505,4, llowcriiig and maturity, plant height, pI:iuit spread, number of prinlzlry anti

secondary branches per plant, number at pods per plant. 100-grain weight.

pod:husk ratio and grain yield per plant. I lie maior portion a F variance was

7f,

contributed Lw the geilolypie component. with the environmental component

being relatively small.

cv'

I'he greatest genotypic variations ere found in the number of pods per plant, pod weight. and 100 seed weight. as reporied hN Paul and Phandis (1997). and

to

Adhikari and Pandcy (1982). Conversely, as shown by Adhikari and Pandey (1982). and Samal and Jagadev (1989). great phenotypic variance was noted within the number o1 primary and secondary branches, first pod height, and days to flowering. Khorgade el at (1985) found that pod number had great phenotvpic variance. however, plant height was less affected by environment.

Jahagirdar et aL (1994) studied eight Ulcer ^one/mum cultivars and their 21 F1s and reported high genotypic and pheimlYpie coefficients of variation for numbers of pods per plant.

Sharma ci at. (1990) studied on II characters in 70 ('ken one/mum genotypes collected from various parts of India and reported the highest gcnotypic and phenotypic variation and genetic advance was shown by secondary branches per plant, lollowed by 100-seed teiglil.

lslani c/ al. (I 992 ) reported lowest phenocvpie co-ellicient of variation br days to Ilowering. Khorgrade ci of. (1985) ohscrcd low genetic co-eblicient of' variation for plant height in his study comprising 32 chickpea genotypes.

Asawa ci at (1977) observed high genetic co-efficient of variation for pods per plant while working with segregating population of' chickpea. l-Iighest genetic co-efficient of' variation for I 00-seed weight was reported by Khorgrade c/ at (1985) Mandel and BahI (1983) observed low genotypie and phcnotpic co-eflicient of variations for harvest index in study comprising 40 local and introduced cultivars of' chickpea.

2.14.2 Heritability

Muhammad ci at (2004) found the high heritability with low genetic advance for number of days to flowering. number of* days to maturity and IOU-seed

weight indicated the in tliicnce of (lollilnaiut and epistatic genes br these traits.

while working with 24 advance lines of chickLpea.

l'arshuram ci at. (2003 ) stated the rnagnittRle of hcriIahilit of chickpea was low for number of leaves. pod weight. seed weighi per plant and shelling percentage: moderate 11w plant height, number of pods per plant and number of' seeds per plant; and high for number of branches per plant, number of days to SOS/n flowering. number of days to IIIaItJrity and 10(1-seed weight.

Low heritability percentage coupled with low and moderate genetic advancement has been observed lbr priniarv and secondary branches.

respectively (Arshad

a

at 2002). Additionally. they indicated that these traits were greatly influenced by environment.

Days to flowering, secondary branch number, and 100-seed weight exhibited high heritability (Noor ci al. 2003). l3oth correlation and path analysis indicated that pod number per plant and 100-seed weight were potent contributors to grain yield through direct el'kcts. [)avs to ilowering. IOU seed weight, and seed yield per plant showed greater Iierjtab,lii. and a significant and positive correlation was observed between seed yield and pod number per plant. Pod iiiimber per plant had _a positive direct eI'Icd oil yield per f)lzt,lt (I.tddin eta!, 1990).

In chickpea high estimates of heritability for the character ol days to Ilowering was found by Chandra (1968) and joslii (1972). Ram c/ W (197%) in their trial with 3 crosses between Dcsi' and KabuIF chickpea reported low estimates of heritability. Indu (1985) and Khorgrade ^{ci at} (1985) conlormed the previotis lindings of Chandra (196%).

Joshi (1972) reported high heritability for the trait ol days to maturity whereas 1{ani et ^cii. (1978) reported ^ltn est inizttes of' 110-il;lbility for this trait in chickpea. lndu (1985) Ibund the similar result olioshi (1972).

Low estimates of heritability Ibr the charaetcr of plant height was ohscrved in chickpea by Khoskhui and Niknejad (1972) while working with parent. 1:1 and Fge iieraiioil ol' chickpea purctines (short- ide :iiid tall-narrow). Rain ci A.

(1978) also men-tioned the similar results in chickpea.

Sharma ci at (1990) reported heritability was highest for 100-seed weight.

days to inaturi ty and plant height

I ugh estimate oF heritability For priniztrv branches per plant was observed by Chandra (1968) in chickpea. Khorgrande (1965) liamd similar result br branches per plant.

Chandra (1969) and joslii (1972) claimed high estimate of heritability for pods per plant in chickpea. The results obtained by Asawa ^{vi at} (1977) segregating

population of chickpea was similar to the prcvious one and commented selection would be effective in the following generations.

Joshi (1983). Rain et al. (1978). Indu (1985). Khorgrade el al. (1985) observed high estitilates of heritability br IOU seed sseiglit in I heir chickpea trials.

Sal irnatli ci al. (1985) studied 2 I I) populations of chickpea and reporied the siniilar results ^Or previous works.

Mandel and I alii (1 983 ) reported Io.. estiiiiale for heritability for the trait of conventional harvest index in chickpea.

2.14.3 Genetic advance

Muhammad ci al. (2003) studied genotypic and phenotypic variability.

heritability, genetic advance and correlation studies lbr yield and its components in 24 genotypes of chickpea in lslamabad. Pakistan in 1999-2000.

High heritability with low genetic advance of days to Ilowering. days to maturity and 100-seed weight indicated Ihe influence of dominant and epistatic genes for these traits. 1-ugh heritability of secondary branches and biological yield coupled with high genetic advance revealed that additive gene cfkcts are important in determining these characters.

Parslitirani c/ al. (2003) obsened Iligil genelie ;itivaiice lr •tiiirnbcr (ii per plant. pod weight. number of seeds. seed weight per plant and 100-seed weight.

indicating the greater ciThets of additive genes than the environment.

Nimbalkar (2000) observed highest genetic advance lbr 100-grain weight and lowest for number of days to maturity in chickpea.

Chavan etat (1994) studied 870 genotypeS ol chickpea and recorded genetic advance for pods per plant and seed yield. I u gh genetic advance combined with high heritability lbr pods per plant and seed yield indicated the importance ol addi Live genetic variance.

Rao ci aL (1994) observed high genetic advance br IOU-seed weight and plant height. Seed yield, pods and secondary branches per plant had relatively low

heritability estimates with high genetic advance.

Jahagirdar ci at (1994) estimated high genetic advance for 100-seed weight.

days to 50% flowering. iitiwber of secondary branches per plant and number of

pods per plant.

Joshi (1972) and Ram ci a?. (1978) observed low genetic advance for the trait of days to maturity but Indu (1985) reported high value of genetic advance Ibr

this trait in chickpea.

Chandra (1968) reported high genetic advance for the character of prisary branches per plant in chickpea whereas Joshi (1972) Ibund low genetic advance for the trait. Khorgrade ci al. (1985) observed similar result as obtained by

Chandra (1968) in chickpea.

Chandra (1968). Joshi (1972) and Asa,6ka ci _(1/. (1977) carried out ditiercnt

chickpea experimen1s and Ikuijid high genetic advance Lw pods per plant.

Moderate genetic advance was reported by Joshi (1972) for the trail of 100 seed weighi whereas high gencric advance lbr the trait was reported by Raw ci a/. (I 97), Indu (1965) and Khorgradc _{ci at} (1985) in chickpea.

Mandel and Rahi (1983) carried offi a chickpea trial with 4() cultivars and reported low genetic advance 1kw harvest index.

Joshi (1972) reported high genetic advance 11w the chziracwr of yield per plant from his observation oVa chickpea trial comprising 20 varielies of chickpea.

2.15 Correlation studies

DifI1.rent orLers studies relatu)IIsl)ip hetncen yield and yield euntribtilitip characters in chickpea. Some ol lie umilporlani ones arc cued heIm

A field experiment was conducted by Cilici _{ci at} (2004) in Turkey to

determine the relationship between the yield and yield components of* 14 chickpea cultivars using correlation. Positive and significant relationships were found among seed yield and plant height, number of branches, number of pods per plant. hiok)gieal yield, harvest index and number of' seeds per plant.

Negative and non-significant relationship was obsen-ed between seed yield and

Muhammad et at (2004) reported grain yield had a positive and significant correlation with plant height. number of pods per plant. 100-seed weight and biological yield.

1'wenty-six genetically diverse genotypes of chickpea were used by Kumar et at (2003) for analysis of correlation coeflicients for days to initial flowering.

(hIVs to )O''o I1oering. tlas to maturity. jIaiit height. priiimarv branches per

plant. secondary branches per plani, pods per plant. seeds per pod. 100-seed weight. biological yield per plant. harvest index and seed yield per plant. In general, the genotvpic correlation coefficients were found to he higher than their respective phenotypic correlations. Harvest index exhibited the highest significant positive association with seed yield fhllowed by pods per plant.

biological yield per plant and secondary branches per plant.

Correlation studies were carried out by Arun ci at (2000) in IS cultivars ol' chickpea. 5 each derived through intervarietal and interspecific (('leer

arlefinum ^x C. reticulatu,n) crosses and mutation breeding. Most of the characters under study exhibited strong correlation with biological and grain yield per plant. harvest index, and 100-seed weight both at phenotypie and genotypic levels. The number of seeds per pod. in general. showed poor correlation with other characters. In some populations. yield showed signi Iieant and positive correlation with protein content. Since most ui 11w cotiiponents showed positive association with yield amongst themselves, it ould he easier

Muhammad et at (2003) reported that the grain yield had positive and significant correlation with plant height, pods per plant. 100-seed weight and biological yield of chickpea.

Arora es at (2003) studied with eighty genetically diverse genotypes of chickpea for eighteen traits, including seed yield per plant. The correlation study revealed that primary branches per plant expressed the highest significant positive relationship with seed yield per plant followed by biological yield per plant. pods per plant. #00-seed weight. plant height. canopy spread. seeds per plant, secondary branches per plant and harvest index. Biological yield per plant had the highest positive direct elThct on seed yield per plant followed by harvest index, pods per plant. I 00-sect) weight and seeds per pod.

Pankaj ci at (2003) studied Ibrty-six genetically diverse chickpea genotypes from various parts of the world and observed significant positive correlation among various characters to _first podding, days to 50% podding, days to 100%

podding, 100-seed weight primary branches per plant, pods per plant and seeds per pod. Yield per plant showed significantly negative correlation with days to first flower, days to 50% flowering. days to 100% flowering, plant length.

Among other most important positive correlations were observed between pods per plant and primary branches per plant, pods per plant and seeds per pod, primary branches per plant and seeds per pod. pods per plant and days to 100%

podding.

Narayana and Reddy (2002) studied the correlations among 9 characters and their association with seed yield in an experiment conducted on 31 chickpea genotypes There was a significant association between seed yield and harvest index, number of pods per plant and number of' secondary branches per plant, both at genotypie and phenotypic levels.

Jeena and Arora (2002) studied fbrty chickpea genotypes fbr the correlation between yield and yield component traits (plant height, canopY spread. length of' pod-bearing branches. first pod-forming node, number of pods per plant.

100-seed weight, biological yield per plant, and harvest index). Biological yield per plant had the highest significant correlation with seed yield (0.844).

Biological yield per plant, number of pods per plant.

100-seed

weight, and first pod-forming node were the major yield-contributing traits Ihr selection.

Kunmr et at (2002) studied some 24 chickpea genotypes lOr the correlation between seed yield and yield components. I larvest index exhibited the highest significant positive correlation with seed yield, Ibliowed by the number of pods per plant. biological yield, and number of secondary branches per plant. Plant height was negatively correlated with seed yield per plant, number of pods per plant, and harvest index. The number of' secondary branches per plant was positively associated with number of pods and biological yield per plant but was negatively correlated with 100-seed weight. 'Ihe number of pods per plant was positively correlated with biological yield per plant and harvest index but

characters were the number of secondary branches and pods per plant, biological yield per plant. and harvest index.

Outer ci all (2001) examined five chickpea lines Ibr relationships between yield and yield components. In the examined characteristics, positive and significant relationships were Ibund between the number of seeds per pod and the number of pods per plant, between the number of seeds per plant and the number of pods per plant and the iuuriibcr ol seeds per pod. Negative and sigiii Iicai it

relationships were tk'lermined between Ike number of pods per plani and IOU seed weight, between the number of seeds per pod and IOU seed weight, between the number of seeds per plant and IOU seed weight.

Singh ci aL (1999) conducted an experiment with 30 diverse populations of chickpea for correlation and path coefficient analysis among different yield contributing traits. The genotypic correlation coefficients were found to be higher in general than their respective phcnotvpie correlations. Number of primary and secondary branches, number of pods per plant and 100-seed weight were the major traits for determining yield. Number of pods per plant and 100-seed weight had maximum direct clThct on yield. I lowever. primary and secondary branches showed indirect effect upon yield through number of pods per plant and, thus. proper emphasis should he given to these during selection.

Yadav and Sharma (I 998) caktilztted yield _COl-Telatiofls frr 10 ('jeer ar/etiwn BCJI)lype. Yield wag POsitively c'nrrej;,ft'tl wit Ii l;iy to zlIahIJrjly and number ul' seeds per pod. and negativdy correlated with days to 50% flowering, number of branches per plant and l00-seed weight.

Khorgade et at

(1995) stated seed yield showed positive significant association with biological yield

per plant, pods per plant, hrzmches per plant.

harvest index and 100-seed weight, whereas days to maturity and seeds per pod had signiricani negative association with seed yieldper plant under both conditions.

Shinde and Saraf (1991) studied Chickpeas cv. Pu.sa 256 and 1550 and observed seed yield was positively correlated with plant height, nodule number and weight, leaf area, pod weight and number, seed number and harvest index in both growing seasons and with branch number and 100-seed weight in I season.

Sandhu c/ ci. (1991 ) studied one hundred genetically diverse lines of chickpea

((leer arwnn,,m) Iitiii X cli l'ft'rt'ni eogr;ipli ical areas. seed yield was positively associated with seeds per pod. primaryand secondary branches and pods per plant and these latter 3 tr