|
|
|
|
Research Article
|
|
Genetic Variability and Association of Bulb Yield and Related Traits in Shallot (Allium cepa Var. Aggregatum DON.) In Ethiopia |
|
Awale Degewione,
Sentayehu Alamerew
and
Getachew Tabor
|
|
|
ABSTRACT
|
The aim of this study was to estimate the extent of genetic variability and character association among bulb yield and related traits. Forty nine shallot accessions from major shallot growing regions of were tested at Debre-Zeit Agricultural Research Center, Central Ethiopia from 2009 to 2010 in simple lattice design with two replications. Variances component method was used to estimate phenotypic and genotypic variation, heritability and genetic advance. Association of traits was also estimated using standard method. The accessions differed significantly for most of the characters and relatively wide range of the mean for most of characters indicated the existence of variation among the tested accessions. High Phenotypic Coefficient of Variation (PCV) and Genotypic Coefficient Variation (GCV) were recorded for leaf diameter and percentage of bulb sprouting. High GCV along with high heritability and genetic advance was obtained from leaf diameter and percentage of bulb sprouting. Bulb yield was positively and significantly associated with plant height, leaf length, leaf sheath length, leaf sheath diameter, bulb length, bulb diameter, bulb dry weight, biological yield per plant and marketable yield per plant at both phenotypic and genotypic levels. Genotypic path-coefficient analysis revealed that bulb dry weight exerted maximum positive direct effect on bulb yield and also exhibited positive association with bulb yield per plant, suggesting their possible utilization to improve bulb yield per plant. D2 analysis showed the 49 shallot accessions grouped into six clusters. This makes the accessions to become moderately divergent. Principal component analysis showed that the first six principal components explained about 76.15% of the total variation. Over all, the study confirmed the presence of character diversity in Ethiopian shallot accessions and this could be exploited in the genetic improvement of the crop through hybridization and simple selection.
|
|
|
|
|
Received: February 20, 2011;
Accepted: May 11, 2011;
Published: July 16, 2011
|
|
INTRODUCTION
Shallot (Allium cepa var. aggregatum Don., 2n = 16) is originated
in tropical central or western Asia and has been cultivated from very early
period (Tindall, 1983). The Allium spp. are distributed
widely through the temperate, warm temperate and boreal zones of the northern
hemisphere (Brewster, 2008). Typically, alliums
are plants of open, sunny, dry sites in fairly arid climates (Brewster,
2008). As shallot and its relative species are generally open pollinated
crops and have been cultivated for long time, a number of landraces and natural
hybrids either intraspecific or interspecific probably are to be on the increase
(Arifin and Okubo, 1996).
Tropical and sub-tropical shallots are preferred for their tolerance to the
hot and humid tropical climate, better tolerance to pests and diseases and longer
storage life than common onion (Rabinowitch and Kamenetsky,
2002). Locally adapted cultivars are grown either for their special flavor,
green leaves or curative effects in Europe, USA and Asia (Fritsch
and Friesen, 2002), in France (Brewster, 2008) and
in Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia (Susheela, 2007).
Per capita consumption of shallot is 1.7 kg in rural areas and 5.9 kg in the
towns (Currah and Proctor, 1990).
Shallot is one of the major vegetable crops used as condiments in most Ethiopian
cuisines. It is hardly possible to get a dish without this vegetable in every
meal of a day (Currah and Proctor, 1990). It has long
been growing in Ethiopia by subsistent farmers in the mid and high altitudes
(1800 m.a.s.l to 2200 m.a.s.l) for flavoring of local foods and as a source
of cash (Getachew et al., 2009). Although shallot
has similar agro-ecological requirements with common onion it is better adapted
to rain-fed (short growing seasons) and is relatively tolerant to leaf diseases
(Currah and Proctor, 1990).
The estimated area under production of shallot and onion in the country in
the 2007/2008 cropping season was 1803 ha with total production of 1751 tones
of fresh bulbs (CSA, 2008). Despite its high economic
importance, the yield of shallot under farmers conditions is very low
(6 t h-1) compared to the 25 t ha-1 obtained under good
management practices (Getachew et al., 2009).
The wide gap in yield is attributed to lack of improved varieties, poor agronomic
practices and soil fertility and diseases (bulb rot and downy mildew) and insect
pests (onion thrips), etc in farmers fields (Getachew
and Asfaw, 2000). Shallot grown in Ethiopia is diverse and includes: bolters
and non-bolters, spreading and compact types, those with various bulb shapes,
sizes and colors (Getachew and Asfaw, 2000). Likewise,
several researchers (Singh, 1981; Kalloo
et al., 1982; Barta et al., 1983;
Abayneh, 2001) reported the existence of wide phenotypic
and genotypic variations in vegetative, bulb yield and yield components and
quality in onion. Mohanty (2001) recorded moderate to
high estimates of heritability, genetic coefficients of variation and genetic
gain for weight of bulb and number of leaves per plant which could be improved
by simple selection (Bose et al., 2003).
In Allium spp., high estimates of heritability and genetic advance with
respect to bulb weight, leaf length, leaf number, bulb length, bulb diameter
have been reported (Kalloo et al., 1982; Dowker,
1990; Abayneh, 2001; Mohanty,
2001). Bulb diameter, bulb weight, bulb thickness, leaf length and days
to flowering were found to be highly heritable in onion (Singh,
1981). Owen (1961) also reported the involvement
of cumulative gene action and a fewer number of genes in controlling soluble
solids in onion. Warid (1952) also found high heritability
and the involvement of four to ten gene pairs and partial dominance of low soluble
solids in onions.
In Allium cepa, positive correlations were observed between yield and
leaf length (Dowker et al., 1976) and between
neck thickness and bulb diameter (Patil and Kale, 1985).
Mohanty, 2001) also reported significant and positive
phenotypic and genotypic associations of bulb yield with plant high, number
of leaves per plant, bulb diameter in onion but significant and negative correlation
with neck thickness (Bose et al., 2003).
The knowledge of the extent of genetic variability present in the population
is essential for further improvement of shallot. Similarly, information on the
extent and nature of interrelationship among characters help in formulating
efficient scheme of multiple trait selection, as it provides means of direct
and indirect selection of component characters (Singh, 2006).
Although, large numbers of shallot accessions are collected from major growing
regions of Ethiopia by Deber-Zeit Agricultural Research Center (DZARC), research
on variability and association among characters in these accessions are limited.
Hence, the present study was undertaken with objectives to estimate the extent
of variability for bulb yield and other related characters and the extent of
correlation between pairs of characters at phenotypic and genotypic levels and
thereby compare the direct and indirect effects of the characters on yield.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Experimental site: The study was conducted at Debre-Zeit Agricultural
Research Center (DZARC) in the central part of Ethiopia from 2009 to 2010 dry
season using irrigation. DZARC is located at 38°55N latitude, 8°44E
longitude and 1900 m.a.s.l, 45 km from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. It receives an
average rainfall of 851 mm per year with mean annual maximum and minimum temperature
of 24.3°c and 8.9°c, respectively (DZARC, 1991).
It has Vertisol soil.
Experimental materials: A total of forty-nine different shallot bulb
accessions that include one local check and one standard check were used for
the study. The majority of the accessions represent the national collection
from different shallot growing regions of the country and that are maintained
at DZARC (Table 1).
Table 1: |
Shallot accessions used in the study |
 |
Source: Debre-Zeit Agricultural Research Center, *standard
check, **Local check |
Experimental design: The experiment was laid out in a 7x7 simple lattice
design with two replications. Healthy and clean bulbs of each genotype were
selected and planted on well prepared plots. The plot size was 2 m long and
1.8 m wide, consisting of 6 rows per plot. The bulbs were planted at spacing
of 30 cmx20 cm between rows and plants, respectively. Phosphorus was applied
in the form of Di-Amonium Phosphate (DAP) at the rate of 200 kg ha-1
at planting. Nitrogen was applied in the form of urea at the rate of 150 kg
ha-1, in two splits, half at planting and the remaining half top-dressed
45 days after planting. All the other management practices were uniformly applied
to all plots using recommended practices of DZARC (Getachew
et al., 2009).
Data collected: Twenty two quantitative characters were recorded on
eight randomly selected plants from the four middle rows of each plot by adopting
IPGRI descriptor (IPGRI, 2001).
Data analysis: Data for quantitative characters were subjected to analysis
of variance (ANOVA) for simple lattice design using Proc lattice and Proc GLM
procedures of SAS version 9.2, (SAS Institute Inc., 2008).
The difference between treatments means was compared using LSD at 1% and 5%
probability levels.
Variability among the accessions was estimated using genotypic variances and
coefficients of variations as suggested by Burton and de
Vane (1953) as:
where, r is No. of replication, Msg is mean square due to genotypes (accessions),
MSe is mean square of error (Environmental variance), Environmental variance
(σ2e) is error mean square (Mse), Phenotypic variance (σ2p)
is σ2g + MSe where, σ2g is genotypic variance
and Phenotypic coefficient of variation (PCV).
X is Mean of the character.
Genotypic coefficient of variation (GCV):
Broad sense heritability (H) for quantitative characters was computed using
the formula suggested by Singh and Chaudhury, 1985) as
follows:
Genetic Advance (GA) for selection intensity (K) at 5% was computed according
to Allard (1960) as given here under.
where, K is a constant (k = 2.056 at 5% selection intensity) and σp is phenotypic standard deviation on mean basis.
Character associations at genotypic and phenotypic levels were calculated from
the genotypic, phenotypic and environmental covariances according to Miller
et al. (1958). In path analysis, bulb yield per plant was taken as
the resultant (dependent) variable while the rest of the characters were considered
as casual (independent) variables. The direct and indirect effects of the independent
characters on bulb yield per plant were estimated by the simultaneous solution
of the formula suggested by Dewey and Lu (1959) and
with statistical package developed by Doshi (1991).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Analysis of variance: The analysis of variance (Table
2) for all of the characters studied, except number of leaves per plant
and days to maturity which were significant (p<0.05), revealed highly significant
(p<0.01) differences among the shallot accessions, indicating the existence
of sufficient genetic variability among the accessions. Similarly, highly significant
variations were observed in plant height, leaf length, bulb diameter, bulb length,
bulb dry weight and biological yield per plant in onion (Abayneh,
2001); in number of leaves and leaf width in Iranian garlic (Baghalian
et al., 2006) and in plant height, leaf length, bulb length and bulb
diameter in garlic (Figliuolo et al., 2001).
Similar to our findings, Dar and Sharma (2011) obtained
highly significant difference among the genotypes for all the quality traits
studied in tomatoes. Moreover, Alsemaan et al. (2011)
reported the existence of genetic diversity within Rosa damascena cultivated
in Syria which is in support of the present finding. In addition, Parthiban
et al. (2011) found variability in Jatropha for some character studied
which is in support of our results. Furthermore, Singh et
al. (2011) also reported similar finding in field pea. In contart to
our finding, Gichimu and Omondi (2010) studied on morphological
characterization of five newly developed lines of Arabica coffee and two commercial
cultivars in Kenya and they reported non significant difference for internodes
length.
Mean performance of accessions: Negelle had the largest bulb (250.74
g/plant) while DZSHT35-2C/94 had the smallest bulb (140.84 g/plant) (Appendix
1). The highest bulb yield (250.74 g) per plant was also recorded in Negelle
due to its large sized bulbs. Accession with the shortest plant height DZSHT072-2/95
(40.98 cm) had lower bulb yield per plant (144.96 g) while tall accessions Hurruta
(51.60 cm), Negelle (51.12 cm), DZSHT164-1/94 (51.26 cm), DZSHT097-1/95 (53.13
cm), DZSHT061-1/95 (53.83 cm) and DZSHT082-2/95 (53.74 cm) had higher yield
bulb per plant of 245.94 g, 250.74 g, 244.88 g, 221.28 g,244.97 g, 236.73 g,
respectively.
The accessions also showed a difference of one month in days to maturity. Result
in Appendix 2 showed that 40.82% of the accessions were
early maturing (92-95 days), 36.73% medium maturing (96-100 days) and only 22.45%
late maturing (101-118 days). The result is in agreement with the observation
of Getachew and Asfaw (2000) indicating that the earliest
shallot cultivars matured in 95 days while the latest took about 126 days.
Table 2: |
Analysis of variance for the 22 characters in shallot accessions
tested at DZARC (2009/10) using simple lattice design |
 |
**and * indicates significant at 1% and 5% probability levels,
respectively. BD: Bulb diameter, DBW: Bulb dry weight, BOY: Biological yield
per plant, MY: Mmarketable yield per plant, UMY: Unmarketable yield per
plant, HI: Harvest index, BY: Bulb yield per plant, BS (%): Percentage of
bulb sprouting, BWL (% ): Percentage of bulb weight, TSS: Total soluble
solid and PCY: Pungency. **and *indicates significant at 1% and 5% probability
levels, respectively. DS: Days to sprouting, PH: Plant height, NSH: Number
of shoots per plant, NL: Number of leaves per plant, LL: Leaf length, LD:
Leaf diameter, LSL: Leaf sheath length, LSD: Leaf sheath diameter, NBS:
Number of bulb splits per plant, DM: Days to maturity and BL: Bulb length |
Variabilities in days to maturity and other traits were also reported earlier
by Rabinowitch (1988) in onion.
Late maturing accessions (Hurruta, Negelle, DZSHT100-1/95 and DZSHT061-1/95)
have high yield per plant compared to the early maturing ones (DZSHT164-2B/94),
in agreement with the observations of Boswell (1984).
The variation may offer an opportunity to develop varieties for agro-ecologies
that differ in their moisture patterns. Among the forty nine accessions, DZSHT169-1B/94,
DZSHT164-1B/94, DZSHT091-2/95, DZSHT008-1/95 and DZSHT082-2/95 were found to
be high yielding as well as early maturating.
Cognizant of the crucial importance of shelflife to ensure an extended availabilityof
bulbs, the accessions were stored in a diffused light store at an average minimum
and maximum temperature of 10.76°C and 27.85°C and relative humidity
of 47.01% for 12 weeks. A significant variation was observed among the accessions:
DZSHT164-1B/94, an early maturing (95 days) and high yielder (244.88 g) accession,
also had low percentage of bulb weight loss (43.75 percent) and bulb sprouting
(8 percent) (Appendix 2). Similarly, Galvan
et al. (1997) obtained differential responses of onion cultivars
in their storability. Similarly, Brewster, 2008) reported
that some shallot strains probably represent the extreme of storability, while
the delicate green shoots of Chinese chives can only be stored for 2-3 days.
On the other hand, high bulb weight loss (77.99 percent) and bulb sprouting
(49 percent) coupled with high bulb yield per plant (244.97 g) was recorded
in DZSHT061-1/95 indicating that such high yielding varieties may only be produced
if they can be consumed immediately. The utilization of their high yielding
potential needs to bring in low sprouting and weight loss traits from accession
such as DZSHT164-1B/94 and DZSHT015-1B/94. The high bulb weight loss and percentage
of bulb sprouting record in DZSHT077-2/94, DZSHT072-2/95, DZSHT017-2/95, DZSHT101-1/95
and DZSHT104-2C/94 indicated that direct selection based on yield traits could
lead to is inferior varieties with short shelflife (Appendix
2).
In general high yielding accessions such as Negelle, Hurruta, DZSHT100-1/95, DZSHT061-1/95 and DZSHT011-1/95 had high bulb weight loss ranging from 63.67 to 77.99% in storage. On the other hand, the low yielding shallot accessions DZSHT040/95 and DZSHT053-1A/90 were among the accessions with long shelflife (only about 40% weight loss). Hence, breeders should combine high yieldand long shelflife to develop cultivars that benefit farmers, traders and consumers.
The pyruvate level estimated in the shallot accessions ranged between 7.37
and 12.49 μ molg-1 of fresh weight in DZSHT046/95 and DZSHT101-1/95,
respectively (Table 6 and Appendix 2).
Similar levels were reported by Baghalian et al.,
2006) in garlic. Low, medium and high pungent onions with0-3, 3-7 and above
7 μ mol-1 pyruvic acid per gram of fresh weight, respectively,
were reported by Shock et al. (2004). But almost
all of the shallot accessions investigated in the present study were qualified
as highly pungent. The lowest and the highest levels of total soluble sugars
were recorded in DZSHT35-2/94 (10.6%) and in DZSHT222-1B/94 (16.4%) Appendix
1).
Balance between pyruvate (pungency) and Total Soluble Sugars (TSS) determines the preference of consumers. Shallot accessions with high levels of sugars and pyruvate were DZSHT044-1/95, DZSHT222-1B/94 and DZSHT087-2B/94. However, DZSHT164-1B/94 was found to have low level of pyruvate but high sugar content, qualifying a character desired in sweet onions.
Bulb dry weight also showed wide variation among the accessions ranging between
10.37 g in DZSHT034-1/95 and 33.93g in DZSHT097-1/95. Marketable yield per plant
also varied from 73.57 g in DZSHT080-1/95 to 216.74 g in Hurruta indicating
that Hurruta can be used for further breeding to improve marketability of bulbs
(Appendix 1) (Table 6, Appendix
2). In general, the range and the mean in this study suggested the existence
of wide variations among the shallot accessions for all of the characters studied
and their considerable potential in the improvement of shallot.
Phenotypic and genotypic variations: We recorded phenotypic variances
ranging between 0.271 and 1193.765 and genotypic variances ranging between 0.42
and 721.335 for traits considered in this study (Table 3).
Relatively higher phenotypic variance values of 1193.765 for marketable yield
and 831.115 for bulb yield per plant were obtained in our study. Similarly,
the genotypic variances for these characters were almost as high, indicating
that the genotype could be reflected by the phenotype and the effectiveness
of selection based on the phenotypic performance for these characters. This
corroborates with the findings of Hosamani et al.
(2010) considering bulb yield only for both the variances.
Phenotypic Coefficients of Variation (PCV) ranged from 7.23% for plant height
to 68.32% for percentage bulb sprouting. The Genotypic Coefficients of Variation
(GCV) ranged from 4.66% in days to maturity to 67.13% in percentage bulb sprouting
(Table 3). Deshmukh et al. (1986)
classified PCV and GCV values as high (>20%), medium (10-20%) and low (<10%).
Accordingly, high PCV and GCV were observed in characters like leaf diameter,
number of bulb splits per plant, biological yield per plant, marketable yield
per plant, unmarketable yield per plant, bulb dry weight, bulb weight loss and
bulb sprouting. The high PCV and GCV indicated that selection may be effective
based on these characters and their phenotypic expression would be good indication
of the genotypic potential (Singh et al., 1994).
Table 3: |
Estimate of ranges, mean, phenotypic (PV) and genotypic (GV)
component of variances, broad sense heritability, and genetic advance as
percent of mean of 22 characters of shallot accessions at DZARC (2009/10) |
 |
PV: Phenotypic variance, GV: Genotypic variance, H2 (%): Broad
sense heritability, GCV (%): Genotypic coefficient of variation, PCV (%):
Phenotypic coefficient of variation, GA (%): Genetic advance, GAM: Genetic
advance as percent of mean |
Similarly, Kassahun (2006) reported high PCV and GCV
estimates for bulb dry weight, weight of bulb and biological yield per plant
in garlic. It is also in conformity with the findings of Getachew
and Asfaw (2000) in shallot. Medium PCV and GCV were displayed in bulb diameter,
leaf sheath diameter, bulb yield per plant, number of shoots per plant, bulb
length and pungency. Further more, medium and low PCV and GCV, respectively,
were observed in characters like leaf length, harvest index, number leaves per
plant and days to sprouting, agreeing with findings of Singh
(1981) in onion.
On the other hand, plant height, total soluble solid and days to maturity showed low GCV and PCV, indicating less scope of selection as they are under the influence of environment.
Phenotypic coefficients of variation were found to be higher than genotypic
coefficients of variation for all characters studied (Table 3).
Similar results were reported by Melke and Ravishankar,
(2006) in twenty six onion accessions and by Pramoda
and Gangaprasad (2007) in four F2 onion populations. In most
cases, the two values differ slightly indicating less influence of environmental
factors. Results of the present study concur with that of Korla
et al. (1981) and Kassahun (2006) in garlic
and Abayneh (2001) and Hosamani et
al. (2010) in onion. Wide differences between PCV and GCV values were
observed in leaf diameter, bulb dry weight, biological yield per plant, marketable
yield per plant and unmarketable yield per plant which may indicate significant
influence of environmental factors on these traits. Therefore, it would be appropriate
to consider the above characters depending on the objective of shallot improvement
program.
Estimates of heritability (H2) in the broad sense: he values
of estimated broad sense heritability for the studied characters were found
between 29.36% for days to maturity to 98.48% for bulb sprouting (Table
3). According to Pramoda and Gangaprasad (2007)
heritability estimates can be low (<40%), medium (40-59%), moderately high
(60-79%) and very high (= 0%). Heritability estimates were very high for percentage
bulb sprouting (98.48%), percentage of bulb weight loss (87.37%), number of
bulb splits per plant (87.30%), pungency (85.20%) and bulb diameter (84.00%),
indicating the possibility of success in selection. The very high heritability
estimates of pungency obtained in the present study is in agreement with that
of Fasika et al. (2008). Total soluble solids
(71.69%), bulb yield per plant (77.79%), biological yield per plant (64.91%),
bulb dry weight (64.9 1%), (64.61%), marketable yield per plant (60.38%), leaf
diameter (69.73%), leaf sheath length (66.67%) and bulb length (76.47%) exhibited
moderately high heritability estimates. Abayneh (2001)
observed similar results in biological yield and total soluble solids in onion.
These characters, therefore, may respond effectively to selection pressure.
Moderate heritability estimates were observed for unmarketable yield per plant
(46.68%), days to sprouting (44.68%), number of leaves per plant (46.85%), harvest
index (44.21%), leaf length (56.69%), leaf sheath diameter (52.98%) and plant
height (49.14%). On the other hand, low heritability estimates were also observed
for days to maturity (29.36%) and number of shoots per plant (39.13%) indicating
the limited scope for improvement of these characters through selection. Similarly,
Pike (1986), Abayneh (2001), Mohanty
(2001) and Fasika et al. (2008) observed
moderate to high heritability estimates for bulb yield per plant in onion.
Estimates of expected genetic advance (GA): The expected genetic advance expressed as a percentage of the mean by selecting the top 5% (high yielder) of the accessions, varied between 5.20% for days to maturity and 145.35% for percentage of bulb sprouting (Table 3) indicating that selecting the top 5% of the base population could result in an advance of 5.20 to 145.35 percent over the respective population mean.
Genetic advance as percentage of mean was maximum for percentage of bulb sprouting
followed by leaf diameter, bulb dry weight, number of bulb splits per plant
and percentage of bulb weight loss and biological yield per plant. Likewise,
genetic advance was maximum for bulb yield per plant, marketable yield per plant,
percentage of bulb weight loss, percentage of bulb sprouting and unmarketable
yield per plant. This is in close agreement with findings of Kassahun
(2006) in garlic.
Burton (1952) suggested that genetic coefficient of
variation together with heritability estimate would give the best picture of
the amount genetic advance to be expected from selection. Similarly, Johnson
et al. (1955) and Johnson and Hernandez (1980)
reported that high genotypic coefficients of variation along with high heritability
and high genetic advance provide better information than each parameter alone.
High genetic coefficient of variation, heritability and genetic advance were
found in biological yield per plant, bulb dry weight, percentage of bulb sprouting,
leaf diameter, number of bulb splits per plant and percentage of bulb weight
loss. These characters could be useful basis of selection. Sandhu
and Korla (1976) and Melke and Ravishankar (2006)
obtained similar results in percentage of bulb sprouting. Besides, Jalata
et al. (2011) also reported that high heritability coupled with high
genetic advance was recorded in thousand kernel weight in Ethiopian barley.
Association of characters: Estimates of phenotypic and genotypic correlation
coefficients between each pair of characters are presented in Tables
4 and 5. The results showed that, in most cases, the genotypic
correlation coefficients were higher than the phenotypic correlation coefficients
which indicated the inherent association among various characters independent
of environmental influence. The results are consistent with the reports of Kalloo
et al. (1982) and Kassahun (2006) in garlic,
Shimeles (2000), Abayneh (2001)
and Hosamani et al. (2010) in onion.
Based on phenotypic and genotypic correlation coefficients, bulb yield per
plant showed positive and significant association with plant height, leaf length,
leaf sheath length, leaf sheath diameter, bulb length, bulb diameter, bulb dry
weight, biological yield per plant and marketable yield per plant at phenotypic
and genotypic levels. that the results imply that improvement of these characters
could improve the capacity of the plants to synthesize and translocate photosynthates
to the organ of economic value, the bulb Similar findings were reported by Vavidel
et al. (1981) and Pandian and Muthukrishnan (1982)
in shallot, Mulungu et al. (1998), Kalloo
et al. (1982), Mahantesh et al. (2007)
and Abayneh (2001) in onion, Lee
et al. (1977) in garlic, Nikhila et al.
(2008) in robusta coffee, Umamaheswari and Mohanan (2011)
in vanilla and Akansha Singh, et al. (2011) in
field pea considering plant height only. Contrary to results of the present
study, Badshah and Umar (1999) reported negative correlation
between yield and plant height in garlic.
Bulb yield per plant had positive and significant associations with leaf diameter
and total soluble solids at phenotypic level. The same trait also displayed
non-significant and positive association with the same traits at genotypic level,
in contrast with the findings of Darbyshire and Henry (1981)
who reported negative and significant correlation of bulb yield per plant with
total soluble solids in onion. Bulb yield per plant displayed negative and significant
association with harvest index, percentage of bulb sprouting, percentage of
bulb weight loss and number of bulb splits per plant at genotypic level, indicating
the difficulty in simultaneous improvement of these traits.
Bulb dry weight had positive and significant association with biological yield
per plant, marketable yield per plant, percentage of bulb sprouting and percentage
of bulb weight loss, plant height, leaf length, leaf sheath length, leaf sheath
diameter, bulb length and bulb diameter at phenotypic and genotypic levels.
An increase in these characters hastened the production of dry matter in the
shallot accessions, in agreement with the findings of Abayneh
(2001) and Havey (1993) in onion. On the other hand,
bulb dry weight had negative and significant association with number of leaves
per plant, number of bulb splits per plant and harvest index at phonotypic level,
in conformity with the results of Abayneh (2001) and
Havey (1993) in onion.
Total soluble solids had positive and significant association with leaf sheath,
leaf length and leaf sheath diameter at both geneotypic and phenotypic levels
but had similar association with number of shoots per plant only at phenotypic
level. However, its association with percentage of bulb weight loss at phenotypic
level was negative and significant. Bulb dry weight had negative and significant
association with number of leaves per plant, number of bulb splits per plant,
unmarketable yield per plant and harvest index at genotypic level suggesting
that an increase in bulb dry weight could result from decrease in all these
traits. In contrast, total soluble solids had positive and significant association
with plant height, number of leaves per plant, leaf length, marketable yield
per plant, number of bulb splits per plant and harvest index. However, it had
negative and significant association with percentage of bulb sprouting indicating
the practical difficulty of simultaneous improvement of both traits due to lack
of closely linked genes that cause co-variation in the traits (Falconer,
1989). This was not in line with the work of Nikhila
et al. (2008) who reported that length of primary branches , number
of primary branches, intermodal length and bush spread are the character that
should be given premium importance while carrying out crop improvement programmes
in robusta coffee.
Table 4: |
phenotypic correlation coefficients (Pr) of the 22 quantitative
characters of shallot accessions at DZARC (2009/10) |
 |
*and** indicated significant at p = 0.05 and p = 0.01probability
level; respectively DS: Date to sprouting; PH: Plant height; NSH: No. of
shoots per plant; NL: No. of leaves per plant; LL: Leaf length; LD: Leaf diameter; LSL: Leaf sheath length BL: Bulb length BD: Bulb
diameter BOY: Biological yield above ground per plant; BDW: Bulb dry weight
per plant; HI: Harvest index per plant ; UMY: Unmarketable yield per plant; Y: Marketable yield per plant; NBS:
No. of bulb splits per plant; LSD: Leaf sheath diameter; MD: Days of maturity;
BY: Bulb yield per plant ; BS(%): Percentage of sprouting bulbs; BWL(%): Percentage of bulb weight loss; TSS:
Total soluble solid and PCY: Pungency |
Table 5: |
Genetic correlation coefficients (g ) of the 22 quantitative
characters of shallot accessions at DZARC (2009/2010) |
 |
DS: Date to 50% sprouting PH: Plant height; NSH: No. of shoots
per plant; NLL No. of leaves per plant; LL: Leaf length; LD: Leaf diameter;
LSL: Leaf sheath length BL: Bulb length BD: Bulb diameter BOY: Biological yield above ground per plant; BDW: Bulb dry weight
per plant; HI: Harvest index per plant; UMY: Unmarketable yield per plant;
MY: Marketable yield per plant ; NBS: No. of bulb splits per plant; LSD: Leaf sheath diameter; MD: Days of maturity;
BY: Bulb yield per plant; BS(%): Percentage of sprouting bulbs; BWL(%):
Percentage of bulb weight loss; TSS: Total soluble solid and PCY: Pungency |
Table 6: |
Estimate of direct effect (bold face and diagonal ) and indirect
effects (off diagonal) at genotypic level in 49 shallot accessions tested
at DZARC (2009/10) |
 |
rg: Genotypic direct effect residual effect = 0.4320, Ch:
Character, DS: Date to sprouting, PH: Plant height, NSH: No. of shoots per
plant, NL: No. of leaves per plant, LL: Leaf length, LD: Leaf diameter, LSL: Leaf sheath length, BL: Bulb length, BD: Bulb diameter, BOY:
Biological yield above ground per plant, BDW: Bulb dry weight per plant,
HI: Harvest index per plant, UMY: Unmarketable yield per plant, Y: Marketable yield per plant, NBS: Number
of bulb splits per plant, LSD: Leaf sheath diameter, MD: Days of maturity,
BY: Bulb yield per plant, BS(%): Percentage of sprouting bulbs, BWL(%): Percentage of bulb weight loss, TSSL: Total
soluble solid and PCY: Pungency |
Path coefficient analysis: Results in Table 6 showed
path coefficient analysis of all traits on bulb yield per plant. High magnitude
and maximum positive direct effects on bulb yield was exerted by bulb dry weight
(1.782) followed by leaf length (1.359), leaf sheath diameter (1.108), number
of bulb splits per plant (0.988), pungency (0.598) and percentage of sprouting
bulbs(0.563) and bulb diameter (0.562), number of bulb splits per plant, indicating
the true relationship between these traits as good contributors to bulb yield
in agreement with findings of Hyder et al. (2007)
in shallot.
Marketable yield per plant had maximum negative direct effect (-1.836) followed
by days to maturity (-0.918), percentage of bulb weight loss (-0.864), bulb
length (-0.707), pungency (-0.598) and harvest index (-0.515). Marketable yield
per plant and bulb length showed the first and fourth (in that order) maximum
negative direct effects on bulb yield per plant in spite of their high positive
and significant association with bulb yield per plant. The positive indirect
influence of marketable yield per plant through days to sprouting, number shoots
per plant, number leaves per plant, leaf length, leaf sheath diameter, bulb
diameter, bulb dry weight, unmarketable yield per plant, harvest index, percentage
of bulb sprouting and pungency and indirect favorable effect of bulb length
on bulb yield per plant via leaf length, leaf sheath diameter, bulb diameter
and bulb dry weight which was counterbalanced by their unfavorable indirect
effects leading to strong positive association (Table 6).
Therefore, these traits must be considered if selection is to be made through
marketable yield per plant and bulb length in agreement with findings of Rahman
and Das (1985) in onion and of Hyder et al. (2007)
in shallot. On the other hand, plant height, leaf sheath length and biological
yield per plant displayed low and negative direct effects on bulb yield per
plant. In addition, biological yield per plant had unfavorable indirect effects
on bulb yield per plant through plant height, number bulb splits per plant,
bulb length and marketable yield per plant. This unfavorable indirect effect
was counterbalanced by the favorable indirect effect of leaf length, leaf sheath
diameter, bulb diameter, bulb dry weight, unmarketable yield per plant and harvest
index and the indirect effect of plant height via leaf length, leaf sheath diameter,
bulb dry weight was outweighed by the unfavorable indirect influence leading
to strong positive association, in agreement with the findings of Mohanty
(2001) and Mahantesh et al. (2007) in onion.
Similarly, leaf sheath length showed highly favorable indirect effects on bulb
yield via leaf sheath diameter and bulb dry weight which was highly nullified
by bulb length and marketable yield per plant leading to its weak positive correlation
with bulb yield.
Bulb dry weight which showed maximum direct effect also exerted considerable positive indirect effect via bulb diameter and negative indirect effect through number of bulb splits per plant, indicating the need for attention while selecting these characters. In addition, favorable indirect effect on bulb yield per plant was obtained for leaf sheath diameter via bulb dry weight. Number of bulb splits in addition to exerting positive direct effect on bulb yield per plant also displayed favorable indirect effect via marketable yield. Percentage of bulb sprouting and bulb diameter having positive direct effects also revealed positive indirect effects on bulb yield through bulb dry weight. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors wish to thank Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research for
funding the research.
APPENDIX
Appendix 1: |
Mean performance of 49 shallot Accessions for 22 quantitative
characters |
 |
DS: Date to 50% sprouting PH: Plant height; NSH: No. of shoots
per plant; NL: Number of leaves per plant; LL: Leaf length; LD: Leaf diameter;
LSL: Leaf sheath length BL: Bulb length BD: Bulb diameter BOY: Biological
yield above ground per plant; BDW: Bulb dry weight per plant; HI: Harvest
index per plant; UMY: Unmarketable yield per plant; MY: Marketable yield
per plant; NBS: Number of bulb splits per plant; LSD: Leaf sheath diameter
; MD: Days of maturity; BY: Bulb yield per plant; BS(%): Percentage of sprouting
bulbs; BWL(%): Percentage of bulb weight loss; TSS: Total soluble solid
and PCY: Pungency |
Appendix 2: |
Mean performance of next 19 shallot Accessions for 22 quantitative
characters |
 |
CV: Coefficient of variation; LSD: Least significant difference;
DS: Date to 50% sprout PH: Plant height NSH: No. of shoots per plant; NL:
No. of leaves per plant; LL: Leaf length; LD: Leaf diameter; LSL: Leaf sheath
length BL: Bulb length BD: Bulb diameter BOY: Biological yield above ground per
plant; BDW: Bulb dry weight per plant ;HI: Harvest index per plant; UMY:
Unmarketable yield per plant; MY: Marketable yield per plant ; NBS: No. of bulb splits per plant; LSD: Leaf sheath diameter ;MD: Days of maturity;
BY: Bulb yield per plant ;BS(%): Percentage of sprouting bulbs; BWL(%):
Percentage of bulb weight loss ;TSS: Total soluble solid and PCY: Pungency |
|
REFERENCES |
1: Abayneh, M., 2001. Variability and association among bulb yield, quality and related traits in Onion (Allium cepa L.). M.Sc. Thesis, School of Graduate Studies, Alemaya University.
2: Singh, A., S. Singh and J.D.P. Babu, 2011. Heritability, character association and path analysis studies in early segregating population of field pea (Pisum sativum L. var. arvense). Int. J. Plant Breed. Genet., 5: 86-92. CrossRef | Direct Link |
3: Allard, R.W., 1960. Principles of Plant Breeding. 1st Edn., John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York pp: 372-372 CrossRef | Direct Link |
4: Arifin, N.S. and H. Okubo, 1996. Geographical distribution of allozyme patterns in shallot (Allium cepa var. ascalonicum Backer) and wakegi onion (A.x wakegi,arki). Euphytica, 91: 305-313.
5: Alsemaan, T., N. Albatal, H. Baydar and K. Almaarri, 2011. Genetic diversity and qualitative variation of Rosa damascene in Syria. Int. J. Agric. Res., 6: 429-436. CrossRef | Direct Link |
6: Badshah, N. and K. Umar, 1999. Evaluation of garlic (Allium sativum) cultivars grown under the agroclimatic conditions of Peshawar valley [Pakistan]. Sarhad J. Agric., 15: 431-436.
7: Baghalian, K., M.R. Naghavi, S.A. Ziai and H.N. Badi, 2006. Post-planting evaluation of morphological characters and allicin content in Iranian garlic (Allium sativum L.) ecotypes. Sci. Hortic., 107: 405-410. CrossRef |
8: Barta, S.K., G. Kalloo and B. Singh, 1983. Combing ability, heterosis and analysis of phenotypic variation in onion. Haryana J. Horticsci., 12: 119-119.
9: Bose, T.K., J. Kabir, T.K. Maity, V.A. Parthasarthy and M.G. Som, 2003. Vegetable Crops. Naya Prokash, Calcutta, India, pp: 9-13
10: Boswell, V.R., 1984. Influence of the time of maturity on yield and storage quality of onion (Allium cepa L.). Proc. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci., 20: 225-233.
11: Brewster, J.L., 2008. Onions and other Vegetable Alliums. 2nd Edn., CABI., Wallingford, UK
12: Dar, R.A. and J.P. Sharma, 2011. Genetic variability studies of yield and quality traits in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Int. J. Plant Breed. Genet., 5: 168-174. CrossRef |
13: Burton, W.G. and E.H. Devane, 1953. Estimating heritability in tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea) from replicated clonal material. Agron. J., 45: 478-481. CrossRef | Direct Link |
14: Burton, G.W., 1952. Quantitative inheritance in grasses. Proc. Int. Grassland Congr., 1: 277-283.
15: CSA., 2008. Report on areas and production of crops (private peasant holding, meher season). Agriculture sample survey (2007/2008): The Federal Democratic republic of Ethiopia central statistical Agency. Statistical Bulletin: 417, Addis Ababa.
16: Currah, L. and F.J. Proctor, 1990. Onion in the tropical region. Overseas Research and Development Administration, Natural Resources Institute, UK. Bull. No. 35.
17: Darbyshire, B. and R.J. Henry, 1981. The distribution of fructans in onions. J. New Phytol., 81: 29-34. Direct Link |
18: Deshmukh, S.N., M.S. Basu and P.S. Reddy, 1986. Genetic variability, character association and path coefficients of quantitative traits in Virginia bunch varieties of groundnut. Indian J. Agric. Sci., 56: 816-821. Direct Link |
19: Dewey, D.R. and K.H. Lu, 1959. A correlation and path-coefficient analysis of components of crested wheatgrass seed production. Agron. J., 51: 515-518. CrossRef | Direct Link |
20: Doshi, S.P., 1991. Statistical Package for Agricultural Research (SPAR): Version 1.1. IASRI, New Delhi
21: Dowker, B.D., 1990. Onion Breeding. Vol. 1. CRC Press, Florida, pp: 215-232
22: Dowker, B.D., R.C. Hardwick, R.C. Fennell and D.J. Andrews, 1976. Genotypic and environmental correlations between leaf growth and bulb size in onions. Ann. Applied Biol., 82: 341-348. CrossRef |
23: DZARC, 1991. Annual research report, 1990/91. Debre-Zeit Agricultuyral Research Center AUA, DZA RC.
24: Falconer, D.S., 1989. Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. 3rd Edn., Longman Scientific and Technical, New York, USA Pages: 438 Direct Link |
25: Fasika, S., T. Hailu and W. Kebede, 2008. Genetic variability studies in Ethiopia Shallot. East Afr. J. Sci., 2: 130-134.
26: Figliuolo, G., V. Candido, G. Logozzo, V. Miccolis and P.L.S. Zeuli, 2001. Genetic evaluation of cultivated garlic germplasm ( Allium sativum L. and A. ampeloprasum L.). Euphytica, 121: 325-334. CrossRef | Direct Link |
27: Fritsch, R.M. and N. Friesen, 2002. Evolution, Domestication and Taxonomy in Alliums. In: Allium Crop Science: Recent Advances, Rabinowitch, H.D. and L. Currah (Eds.). CABI Publishing, London, pp: 5-21
28: Galvan, G.A., W.A. Wietsma, S. Putrasemedja, A.H. Permadi and C. Kik, 1997. Screening for resistance to anthracnose (Colletotrichum gloeosporioides Penz.) in Allium cepa and its wild relatives. Euphytica, 95: 173-178. CrossRef |
29: Getachew, T. and Z. Asfaw, 2000. Research achievements in garlic and shallot. Research Report. No.36. Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
30: Getachew, T., D. Eshetu and D. Tebikew, 2009. Guidelines for shallot and garlic production. Debre-Ziet Agricultural Research Center, Debre-Ziet, Ethiopia, (Amharic), pp: 51.
31: Gichimu, B.M. and C.O. Omondi, 2010. Morphological characterization of five newly developed lines of Arabica coffee as compared to commercial cultivars in Kenya. Int. J. Plant Breed. Genet., 4: 238-246. CrossRef | Direct Link |
32: Havey, M.J., 1993. Onion (Allium cepa L.). In: Genetic Improvement in Vegetable Crops, Kalloo, G. and B.O. Berg (Eds.). Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp: 32-35
33: Hosamani, R.M., B.C. Patil and P.S. Ajjappalavara, 2010. Genetic variability and association among bulb yield and yield-related traits in onion (Allium cepa L.). Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 23: 302-305.
34: Hyder, H., N. Sharker, M.B. Ahmed, M.M. Hannan and M.A. Razvy et al., 2007. Genetic variability and interrelationship in onion (Allium cepa L.). Middle-East J. Scient. Res., 2: 132-134.
35: IPGRI, 2001. Descriptors for Allium (Allium sp.). International Plant Genetic Resources, Rome, Italy; European Cooperative Programme for Crop Genetic Resources Networks (ECP/GR), Asian Vegetable Research and Development Centre (AVRDC), Taiwan, pp: 1-50.
36: Jalata, Z., A. Ayana and H. Zeleke, 2011. Variability, heritability and genetic advance for some yield and yield related traits in Ethiopian barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) landraces and crosses. Int. J. Plant Breed. Genet., 5: 44-52. CrossRef | Direct Link |
37: Johnson, C.E. and T.P. Hernandez, 1980. Heritability studies of early and total yield in tomatoes. Horti. Sci., 15: 280-285. Direct Link |
38: Johnson, H.W., H.F. Robinson and R.E. Comstock, 1955. Genotypic and phenotypic correlations in soybeans and their implications in selection. Agron. J., 47: 477-483. CrossRef | Direct Link |
39: Kalloo, J.C., S.C. Pandey, S. Lal and M.L. Pandita, 1982. Correlation and path analysis Studies in onion (Allium cepa L.) Haryana. J. Hortic. Sci., 11: 97-97.
40: Kassahun, T., 2006. Variability and association among bulb yield and related traits in garlic (Allium sativum L.). M.Sc. Thesis, School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University.
41: Korla, B.N., A.K. Singh and P. Kalia, 1981. Genetic variability in garlic. Haryanna J. Horti. Sci., 10: 77-80.
42: Lee, W.S., Y.C. Kim and B.C. Lee, 1977. Varietal characters and genetic correlations in different ecotypes of garlic. Korean J. Breed., 9: 149-157. Direct Link |
43: Mahantesh, B., M. Harshavardhan, D. Tippesha, M.R.P. Sajjan and G. Janardhan, 2007. Correlation studies in onion genotypes in kharif season under irrigated and rainfed situations. Asian J. Hort., 2: 71-74.
44: Melke, A. and H. Ravishankar, 2006. Variability and association among bulb yield and yield-related traits in onion (Allium cepa L.). Trop. Agric. (Trinidad), 83: 112-119.
45: Miller, P.A., J.C. Williams, H.F. Robinson and R.E. Comstock, 1958. Estimate of genotypic and environment variance in up land cotton and the implications and selections. Agron. J., 50: 126-131.
46: Mohanty, B.K., 2001. Genetic variability, inter-relationship and path analysis in onion. J. Trop. Agric., 39: 17-20. Direct Link |
47: Mulungu, L.S., S.O.W.M. S. Reuben, Nchimbimsolla, R.N. Misangu, L.B. Mbilinyi and M.M. Macha, 1998. Performance of nine exotic and local onion (Allium cepa L.) genotypes grown under a dry season tropical condition at Morogoro, Tanzania: 1. Yield and its components. S. Afr. J. Sci., 94: 451-454. Direct Link |
48: Nikhila, K.R., V.B. Sureshkumar, K.V. Mohanan and A. Santaram, 2008. Association of agronomic characters in robusta coffee (Coffea canephora Pierre ex Froehner). Int. J. Plant Breed. Genet., 2: 47-50. CrossRef | Direct Link |
49: Owen, E.W., 1961. The inheritance of dry matter in onion bulbs. J. Genet., 40: 157-157.
50: Pandian, I.R.S. and C.R. Muthukrishnan, 1982. Correlation and path coefficient analysis in onion (Allium cepa L.) seed to bulb generation. South Indian Hortic., 30: 22-24.
51: Parthiban, K.T., R. Kirubashankkar, M. Paramathma, V. Subbulakshmi and P. Thiyagarajan et al., 2011. Genetic association studies among growth attributes of jatropha hybrid genetic resources. Int. J. Plant Breed. Genet., 5: 159-167. CrossRef |
52: Patil, R.S. and P.N. Kale, 1985. Correlation studies on bulb characteristics and storage Losses in onion. J. Maharashtra Agric. Univ., 10: 38-38.
53: Pike, L.M., 1986. Onion Breeding. In: Breeding Vegetable Crops, Basset, M.J. (Ed.). AVI Press, Westport, CT., USA., pp: 357-394
54: Pramoda, H.P. and S. Gangaprasad, 2007. Biometrical basis of handling segregation population for improving productivity in onion (Allium cepa L.). J. Asian Hort., 3: 278-280.
55: Rabinowitch, H.D., 1988. Genetics and breeding. Proceedings of the 4th Eucarpia Allium Symposium, (EAS'88), Institute of Horticultural Research, Welles Bourne, UK., pp: 57-69
56: Rabinowitch, H.D. and R. Kamenetsky, 2002. Shallot (Allium cepa, Aggregatum Group). In: Allium Crop Science: Recent Advances, Rabinowitch, H.D. and L. Currah (Eds.). CABI Publishing, London, pp: 409-426
57: Rahman, A.K.M. and M.K. Das, 1985. Correlation and path analysis in garlic. Bangladesh J. Agric. Res., 10: 50-54.
58: Sandhu, J.S. and B.N. Korla, 1976. Variability, heritability and correlation study in onion. Indian J. Hort., 32: 71-71.
59: SAS Institute Inc., 2008. SAS/STAT, Statistical Software. Version 9.2, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.
60: Shimeles, A., 2000. Study on flower and seed production potential and association of characters with seed yield in onion (Allium cepa L.). M.Sc. Thesis, School of Graduate Studies. Alemaya University.
61: Singh, R.K. and B.D. Chaudhury, 1985. Biometrical Methods in Quantitative Analysis. Kalyani Publishers, New Dehli, India pp: 318
62: Singh, R.P., 1981. Genetic evaluation and path analysis in onion. Madras Agric. J., 68: 61-80.
63: Singh, G.P., K.R. Maurya, B. Prasad and A.K. Singh, 1994. Genetic variability in Capsicum annuum L. J. Applied Biol., 4: 19-22.
64: Shock, C.C., E.B.G. Feibert and L.D. Saunders, 2004. Pungency of selected onion varieties before and after storage. Oregon State University Agricultural Experiment Station Special Report No. 1055, pp: 45-46.
65: Susheela, R., 2007. Hand Book of Spices, Seasonings and Flavorings. 2nd Edn., Taylor & Francis Group, LLC, Boca Raton, London, New York, pp: 144-146
66: Tindall, H.D., 1983. Vegetables in the Tropics. Macmillan Education Ltd., Hong Kong, pp: 17
67: Umamaheswari, R. and K.V. Mohanan, 2011. A study of the association of agronomic characters in Vanilla planifolia andrews. Int. J. Plant Breed. Genet., 5: 53-58. CrossRef | Direct Link |
68: Vavidel, B., C.R. Muthukrishnan and I. Irulappan, 1981. Association of characters between yield and yield components in aggregatum onion (Allium cepa L.). South Indian Hortic., 29: 227-228.
69: Warid, W.A., 1952. Inheritance studies in the onion. Am. J. Hort. Sci., 9: 301-304.
70: Singh, R.J., 2006. Genetic Resources, Chromosome Engineering, and Crop Improvement: Vegetable Crops, Volume 3. 1st Edn., CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA., ISBN-13: 978-0849396465, pp: 552
|
|
|
 |