Gene Effects for Yield and Yield Components in Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) under Irrigated and Rainfed Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seven genetically diverse parents of chickpea were crossed in five combinations (RSG-895 x RSG-888, RSG-888 x ICC-4958, IPC-94-94 x RSG-888, CSJD-901 x RSG-931 and BG-362 x RSG-931) to develop F1, F2 and F3 hybrid progenies. Five generations viz., P1, P2, F1, F2 and F3 were grown in a compact family block design under irrigated and rainfed conditions to estimate the gene effects for yield and yield components. Scaling test ‘C’ and ‘D’ as well as joint scaling test revealed presence of epistatic in all the crosses for all the characters studied viz., days to 50% flowering, days to maturity, plant height, fruiting branches per plant, pods per plant, seeds per pod, biological yield per plant, seed yield per plant, harvest index, 100-seed weight and protein content under both the conditions. Both main effects additive (d) and dominance (h) were important for all the characters in all the crosses under both the conditions except 100-seed weight, where only additive effect was found important. Both additive x additive (i) and dominance x dominance (l) interaction effects were also important for all the characters in all the crosses under both the conditions except 100-seed weight, where only additive x additive interaction was found important. Generally, the magnitudes of dominance (h) and dominance x dominance (l) were prevailed over additive (d) and additive x additive (i) effects, respectively. Duplicate type of epistasis was observed in all the cases, where epistasis was established. Thus, it can be concluded that additive, dominance, additive x additive (i) and dominance x dominance (l) effects contributed significantly to the inheritance of various component characters in chickpea under both irrigated and rainfed conditions. These results implies the use of recurrent selection by way of intermating the desirable segregants followed by selection or biparental approach/intermating of segregants in early segregating generations for improvement of these components characters in chickpea under both the conditions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".