Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
p
2
=
g
2
+
e
2
where
p
2
= Phenotypic variance,
g
2
= genotypic variance and
e
2
= environmental variance (error mean square);
g
2
=
t
2
e
2
r
where ,
t
2
= mean square of treatment and
r = number of replications;
20
PCV =
( )
p
x
2
100
_
*
where, PCV = Phenotypic Coefficient of variation and
_
x
= population mean ,and
GCV=
(
)
g
x
2
*100
_
Where GCV = genotypic Coefficient of variation
3.5.3. Heritability in the Broad Sense
Heritability on plot basis was calculated for each character based on the formula developed by Allard
(1960) as: H=
g
p
2
2
100 *
3.5.4. Expected Genetic Advance
The Genetic Advance (broad sense ) expected under selection assuming the selection intensity of 5%
was calculated by the formula suggested by Allard (1960):
Gs=(K)(A) (H)
Where, Gs = expected genetic advance, and
K = the selection differential (K=2.06 at 5% selection intensity).
A= phenotypic standard deviation
H = heritability.
21
3.5.4.1. Genetic advance as a per cent of mean
Genetic advance as a per cent of mean was estimated as :
GA * 100
_
x
Where
_
x
= Population mean
3.5.5. Correlation Analysis
Phenotypic correlation is the relationship between two variables, which includes both genotypic and
environmental effects, and genotypic correlation is the inherent association between two variables.
These were estimated using the formula suggested by Miller et al., (1958).
r
p
=
( )
Pcov x. y
*
g
x pY
2 2
r
g
=
( )
G
x y
g
cov x . y
*
g
2 2
Where, rp = phenotypic correlation coefficient ,
Pcov x.y = phenotypic covariance between character x and y,
p
2
x = phenotypic variance for character x, and
p
2
y = phenotypic variance for character y;
r
g
= genotypic correlation coefficient,
Gcov x.y = genotypic covariance between characters x and y,
g
2
x = genotypic variance for character x, and
g
2
y = genotypic variances for the character y.
22
3.5.6. Path Coefficient Analysis
In path-coefficient analysis, bulb yield per plant was taken as the resultant (dependent) variable while
rest of the characters considered as causal (independent) variables. The direct and indirect effects of
the independent characters on bulb yield per plant were estimated by the simultaneous solution of the
following general formula suggested by Dewy and Lu (1959) :
rij = pij + rik pkj where,
rij = mutual association between the independent character (i)
and dependent character (j) as measured by the genotypic
correlation coefficients,
pij = components of direct effects of the independent character (i) on
the dependent character (j) as measured by the genotypic path coefficients,
and
rikpkj= summation of components of indirect effects of a given
independent character (i) on the given dependent character (j) via all other
independent characters(k).
To determine pij values, square matrices of the correlation coefficients between independent
characters in all possible pairs inverted and then multiplied by the correlation coefficients between the
independent and dependent characters using Agrobase statistical package. Residual effects were
estimated using the formula:
1-R
2
where, R
2
= P
ij
r
ij
23
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Analysis of Variance
The results on the analysis of variance using RCB design are presented in Appendix Table 2. It can
be seen that mean square due to germplasm lines were highly significant for all the traits studied
indicating the existence of sufficient genetic variability. The characters for which coefficient of
variation was slightly higher included bulb length, fresh and dry weights above ground, yield per plant,
harvest index per plant, and biological yield per plant but it was less than 20 per cent for the rest,
indicating the better precision of the experiment.
4.2. Variability Studies
The results of the present study on the estimates of range, mean, phenotypic and genotypic coefficient
of variations, phenotypic and genotypic variances, heritability in the broad sense, genetic advance and
genetic advance as a per cent of mean for the sixteen characters studied are presented in Table 2.
4.2.1. Estimates of Range and Mean
The maximum bulb yield per plant (306g) was recorded by the germplasm line Granex 429 while it
was the lowest (70g) in AC 11-I (Appendix Table 1).
24
Grouping of the germplasm lines based on dry weight revealed that 30, 50 and 20 per cent of the
germplasm could be categorized as high, medium and low, respectively. This result is in agreement
with the findings of Brewster (1990) that cultivars for dehydration had a higher bulb dry matter (13-20
per cent) than the normal ones (7-10 per cent). This is supported by the observation of Luh et al.,
(1975) indicating that onions with high dry matter are firmer and hence more resistant to damage
during transport and storage. Yamaguchi et al., (1975) observed that onions with high dry matter
content tended to yield less than those with low dry matter content, thus the cultivars with high dry
matter content may be less attractive to growers, particularly, to sell the crop at the green bulb stage
or as soon as it reached its maximum size.
With respect to maturity (Appendix Table 1), 38.5 per cent of the entries were observed to be early
maturing (105 -115 days), 50 per cent medium maturing (116 -119 days) and only 11.5 per cent late
maturing (120 -125 days). As regards pungency 19.4 per cent (pungent) of the germplasm lines
ranged between (0.136 -0.361 mol pyruvic acid g
-1
fresh weight followed by 57.6 per cent
(moderately pungent) between (0.102-0.135 mol pyruvic acid g
-1
fresh weight) and the remaining 23
percent (mild pungent) ranged between (0.052-0.101 mol pyruvic acid g
-1
fresh weight). This is in
conformity with the findings of Schwimmer and Weston (1961). In view of the increased demand
and market for moderately pungent onions, development of such cultivars is becoming an important
goal for breeders (Vavrina and Smittle, 1993). Onion breeders require an objective test to select for
pungency and currently, the pyruvic acid estimation is the best alternative to achieve this goal ( Waller
and Corgan, 1992). In the present study, this approach was adopted.
25
Table 2. Estimates of mean, range, coefficient of variation phenotypic (PCV) and genotypic (GCV) levels, phenotypic (
2
p) and genotypic
(
2
g
) variances, heritability in broad sense (h
2
), genetic advance (GA) and genetic advance as per cent of mean for various
characters.
Characters Range Mean SE PCV
(%)
GCV
(%)
2
P
2
g
h
2
(%)
GA GA
(as % of
mean)
Plant height (PH) 53.0-80.4 64.22 2.92 14.45 12.10 68.98 60.45 87.62 14.99 23.34
Leaf length (LL) 43.7-68.4 53.97 2.90 16.47 13.58 62.14 53.69 86.39 14.03 25.99
Leaves /plant (LP) 10.9-35.5 19.29 1.97 32.07 26.76 30.52 26.64 87.29 9.94 51.50
Leaf diameter (LD) 1.5-3.8 2.45 0.18 25.62 22.24 0.328 0.296 90.16 1.07 43.49
Neck thickness (NT) 1.8-3.48 2.65 0.20 19.41 14.26 0.184 0.143 77.89 0.69 25.94
Bulb diameter (BD) 7.0-9.7 8.47 0.75 15.37 2.38 0.599 0.041 6.87 0.11 1.29
Bulb length (BL) 5.2-9.3 6.86 0.94 25.15 8.60 1.224 0.349 28.48 0.65 9.47
Bulb dry weight (BDW) 3.93-13.4 8.49 0.85 35.23 30.69 7.521 6.80 90.42 5.11 60.11
Total soluble solid (TSS) 6.2-15.0 10.25 0.76 25.43 21.90 5.624 5.04 89.63 4.38 42.73
Pungency (PCY) 0.056-0.36 0.107 0.01 32.73 27.83 0.00123 0.000887 72.11 0.058 53.98
Fresh weight above ground
(FWAG)
105.5-581.5 260.36 37.9 60.72 55.24 21112.81 20679.48 93.50 286.46 110.02
Dry weight above ground
(DWAG)
11.9-48.9 24.42 3.85 51.34 43.48 157.21 112.7773 71.73 20.57 84.21
Days to maturity (DTM) 105-125 117.69 3.03 6.29 4.44 36.46 27.282 74.83 9.31 7.90
Yield per plant (YPP) 70-306 1.66 0.23 48.00 42.08 0.538 0.489 90.89 1.38 82.66
Harvest index per plant (HIPP) 0.014 -0.12 0.055 0.13 51.86 44.29 0.000813 0.000593 72.94 0.047 86.07
Biological yield per plant(BY
PP)
10.97-142.7 32.92 4.086 38.60 32.06 128.09 111.387 86.96 20.27 61.58
26
The higher per centage values of total soluble solids (Appendix Table 1) were recorded by the
germplasm lines Bombay red (11.03), Agrifound Dark Red (11.37), Red Creole (11.73), AC50-I
(12.13), AC726(A)-C (12.13), AC2-I (12.2) AC8-I (12.33), AC 383-I (13.33), AC 11-I (13.53),
Kalipitiya (15.00) and Adama Red (11.53). For the rest, the values ranged between ( 6.0-10.0)
indicating low soluble solids content.
Bulb yield per plant ranged between 168.3g and 306.7g for the top 12 high yielding entries (Appendix
Table 1). Among them, nine were observed to be medium maturing (116-119 days) indicating the
association of high yielding trait with medium maturity. Germplasm lines relatively longer period might
have developed good edible flesh over the early maturing ones and at the same time long maturing
ones might have faced terminal moisture stress. This is corroborated by the observations of Boswell
(1984). Maximum harvest index was recorded in respect of the germplasm lines AC498 (0.121),
AC567 (0.097), AC 496 (o.098),Granex 429 (0.085) and AC499 (0.080).
Bulb diameter higher than 6 cm was recorded for all the germplasm lines, except Bombay Red. Out
of the 26 germplasm lines, 57.6 per cent recorded above 60 cm plant height, whereas 42.4 per cent of
them had the height ranging between (50 59 cm). With regard to leaves per plant, 42.3 per cent of
the germplasm recorded more than 20 leaves per plant while 46.2 per cent had leaves ranging
between 14 -19. Leaf length ranged between 50 - 68.4 cm in 53.85 per cent of the germplasm. Leaf
diameter varied between 2 -3 cm in 80. 75 per cent of the lines. A bulb length of 6 to 9 cm was
recorded in 69.23 per cent of the germplasm lines.
Highest fresh weight and dry weight above ground biomass were recorded in respect of the lines
27
9695, 9698, AC 461, AC540, AC595 and Granex 429 (Appendix Table 1). They ranged between 350
- 581g for fresh weight per plant and 30 - 48g for dry weight per plant which accounted for 23 per
cent of the lines. Out of these, only Granex 429 was high yielder and the rest were poor in their bulb
yield. For majority of the lines, fresh weight above ground biomass ranged between 150 -349g and
dry weight above ground biomass ranged between 15 - 46 . 7 g and this represented 61.5 per cent of
the lines. Out of the 26 germplasm lines, 92.3 per cent had neck thickness ranging between 2. 13 -
3.49 cm.
Generally, the range of phenotypic variation was very high for all the characters considered, specially
for the characters like plant height, leaf length, leaf diameter, neck thickness, fresh weight above
ground, dry weight above ground, days to maturity and biological yield per plant while the remaining
traits showed less variability. Sufficient variability for days to maturity and other traits was also
reported earlier by Rabinowitch (1988) in onion.
4.2.2. Estimates of Phenotypic and Genotypic Variability
PCV was generally higher than GCV for all the characters considered (Table 2) but in majority of
the cases, the two values differed only slightly suggesting lesser influence of the environmental
factors. However , the differences between PCV and GCV for leaves per plant, neck thickness, bulb
diameter, bulb length, fresh weight above ground, dry weight above ground, yield per plant, harvest
index per plant and biological yield per plant were relatively wide indicating the influence of
environment in determining these traits. The ranges for PCV was 6.29 per cent in respect of days to
maturity to 60.72 per cent in case of fresh weight above ground and for that of GCV, it was 4.4 per
cent for days to maturity to 55.24 per cent in respect of fresh weight above ground biomass.
28
Maximum genetic variation was obtained for plant height, leaf length, leaf diameter, neck thickness,
fresh weight above ground, dry weight above ground, yield per plant, days to maturity and biological
yield per plant (Table 2) and these variations in characteristics may be attributed to the geographical
origin of the germplasm lines. This offers wide scope for selection among these characters. Moderate
PCV and GCV values were recorded for leaves per plant, bulb length, bulb diameter, bulb dry weight
and total soluble solids. These findings are in agreement with those of Singh (1981) who reported
moderate to high PCV and GCV for the above observations. Hence, these traits having considerable
genetic variability, offers good opportunity for crop improvement through selection. Days to maturity
showed the lowest PCV and GCV value indicating limited scope for improvement of this trait
through selection
Generally , PCV and GCV estimates were observed to be high for bulb yield per plant, harvest
index, fresh and dry weights above ground and biological yield per plant indicating high genetic
variability for effective selection.
4.2.3. Estimates of Heritability (h
2
) in Broad Sense
Burton (1952) suggested that genotypic coefficient of variation along with heritability estimates
would provide a reliable estimate of the amount of genetic advance to be expected through phenotypic
selection. Broad sense heritability (h
2
), an estimate of total genetic variance as a portion of the total
phenotypic variance, which was worked out in respect of the sixteen characters ranged from 6.87 to
93.50 per cent.
29
Higher heritability estimates (per cent) were obtained for fresh weight above ground (93.50 ), yield
per plant (90.89) , bulb dry weight (90.42) and leaf diameter (90.16) . The GCV value for these traits
were also high in magnitude (Table 2). Harvest index per plant (72.94 per cent), biological Yield per
plant (86.96), days to maturity (74.83), dry weight above ground (71.73), pungency(72.11), soluble
solids (89.63), neck thickness (77.89), number of leaves (87.29), leaf length (86.39) and plant height
(87.62) also exhibited high heritability estimates.
The above characters, therefore , may respond effectively to selection pressure . GCV and heritability
estimates were observed to be high for fresh weight above ground, plant height, leaf length, leaf
diameter, soluble solids, harvest index, yield per plant, bulb dry weight, pungency, dry weight above
ground, biological yield per plant which could be of much significance in selection. Low heritability
was recorded for bulb diameter and bulb length indicating limited possibility of improvement of these
characters via selection. Singh (1990) observed that if heritability of a character is very high around 80
per cent or more, selection for such a character should be fairly easy. This is because there would
be a close correspondence between the genotype and phenotype due to relatively small contribution of
the environment to the phenotype . But for characters with low heritability, say less than 40 per cent,
selection may be considerably difficult or virtually impracticable due to the masking effect of the
environment on the characteristics of germplasm.
In support to the findings of this investigation, Pike (1986) observed moderate to high heritability
estimates for bulb yield per plant, bulb thickness and leaf length in onion.
4.2.4. Estimates of Expected Genetic Advance (GA)
Heritability estimates though provide basis for selection based on the phenotypic performance, the
30
estimates of heritability and genetic advance should always be considered simultaneously as high
heritability is not always associated with high genetic gain (Johnson et al., 1955).
The expected genetic advance expressed as a per centage of the mean by selecting the top 5 per cent
(high yielders) of the germplasm lines, varied from 1.29 per cent for bulb diameter to 110.02 per cent
in fresh weight above ground (Table 2). This indicated that selecting the top 5 per cent of the base
population could result in an advance of 1.29 to 110.02 percent over the population mean.
Comparatively high expected genetic advances were observed for leaves per plant, leaf diameter, bulb
dry weight, soluble solids, pungency, dry weight above ground, yield per plant (Table 2). Hence,
selection for these characters is likely to be more effective, as high heritability values were associated
with high genetic advance in the present study. This could be due to the additive gene effects (Panse,
1957). In the present study, low values of genetic advance were recorded for bulb length, bulb
diameter and days to maturity. Therefore, it is imperative that selection of germplasm lines based on
phenotypic performance for these characters with low genetic advances would not be effective. This
finding is in harmony with that of Dowker (1990) who reported high genetic advance as a per cent of
mean for bulb weight, leaf length and leaves per plant. High heritability associated with high genetic
advance was also noticed for pungency, soluble solids, leaf diameter, leaves per plant, bulb dry weight
, fresh weight above ground, dry weight above ground, yield per plant, harvest index per plant and
biological yield per plant on single plant basis. This implied that the above characters are amenable for
selection.
4.3.Association of Characters
4.3.1.Estimates of Correlation Coefficients at Genotypic (rg) and Phenotypic
31
(rp)Levels
The results of the present study pertaining to variability indicated adequate variation among the
germplasm lines that could be considered to attempt a substantial improvement through selection for
any one of these traits. In such a conclusion however, the breeding problem is seldom simplified to
the extent that improvement is desired in a single character with a complete disregard to other
attributes. Investigating the possibilities of high yield through yield attributes, as primary interest in
crop improvement, therefore, requires understanding of the amount of the magnitude of correlations
among various yield traits.
Estimates of the phenotypic and genotypic correlation coefficients between each pair of the studied
characters are presented in Table 3. In majority of the cases, genotypic correlation coefficients were
higher in magnitude than the corresponding phenotypic ones, indicating inherent associations among
various characters . This is in general agreement to that reported by Padda et al. , (1973) in onion.
4.3.1.1. Correlation of Bulb Yield Per Plant with its Components
Bulb yield per plant showed positive and significant phenotypic association with plant height, leaf
length, leaf diameter, neck thickness, fresh weight above ground, dry weight above ground, harvest
index and biological yield per plant. The correlation coefficient of these
traits with bulb yield at genotypic level was also high (Table 3). This indicated the trend that
improvement of these characters could improve physiological capacity to mobilize and translocate
photosynthates to the organs of economic value, which in turn might have increased the bulb yield
resulting from positive association of these characters with yield as observed in the present study.
32
Similar result was reported by Fehr (1987). On the other hand, significant and negative phenotypic
and genotypic correlations were found between bulb yield per plant with bulb dry weight, days to
maturity and total soluble solids. These correlations suggested that the germplasm lines producing
relatively medium sized bulb could produce higher dry matter yield and soluble solids as compared to
the ones yielding large sized bulbs. This is in agreement with the findings of Darbyshire and Henry
(1979) who reported negative and significant correlation of bulb yield per plant with bulb dry matter
and soluble solids in onion germplasms having medium bulb size.
Harvest index per plant showed positive association with bulb yield per plant at both phenotypic as
well as gentoypic levels (Table 3). This facilitated identification of individual bulbs with good
performance during selection. These findings are in conformity with that of Padda et al., (1973).
A low magnitude of negative correlation was recorded between bulb yield per plant and leaves per
plant at both phenotypic as well as gentoypic levels manifested in the lengthening of vegetative period.
This has probably induce less bulbing in some germplasm lines. Similar observation was reported by
Brewster (1990).
33
34
Days to maturity also showed significant and negative association with bulb yield per plant at both
phenotypic as well as genotypic levels. This indicated that too early and late maturing germplasm lines
are low in their bulb yield. It is however, felt that selecting germplasm lines coupled with medium
maturity and moderate to high bulb yields could be profitable in onion improvement program. This is in
view of the observation that in onion, medium maturity is associated with high bulb yield (Pathak,
1994).
4.3.1.2. Correlation Among Other Characters
Many of the characters studied were either positively or negatively correlated due to the mutual
association with other characters (Table 3). Biological yield per plant recorded low magnitude positive
correlation with pungency (r
g
= 0.145) indicating that the increase in total
biological yield per plant resulted in minimum contribution to pungency. Pungency also showed
significant positive correlation with fresh and dry weights above ground.
Biological yield per plant also showed significant positive correlation with plant height (r
g
= 0.601), leaf
length (rg=0.607), leaves per plant (rg=0.495), leaf diameter (rg= 0.537), neck thickness (rg= 0.622),
soluble solids (r
g
= 0.274), fresh weight above ground (r
g
=0.973), dry weight above ground (r
g
=0.967)
and days to maturity (r
g
= 0.6006). This is suggestive that the increment in biomass production is a
consequence of long phenological period and giant plant morphology. Harvest index showed negative
and significant association with biological yield (r
g
=-0.369). This indicated that biological yield
increased at the expense of bulb yield in onion. This is corroborated by the findings of Havey (1993).
The correlation between harvest index per plant and plant height, leaf length, leaf diameter was
35
positive and significant, but its association with leaves per plant, bulb dry weight, total soluble solids,
pungency, days to maturity was negative and significant. This implied that economic yield is
associated with germplam lines of early to medium maturity period. This observation was in
conformity with that of Sandhu and Korla (1976).
Days to maturity was correlated positively and significantly with plant height, leaves per plant, leaf
diameter, neck thickness, soluble solids, pungency, fresh and dry weights above ground. This probably
indicated that longer phenological period could result in large biomass accumulation with minimum
contribution to bulb yield due to less efficiency in dry matter partitioning. Similar views were
expressed by Brewster (1990a).
Similarly, fresh and dry weights above ground were positively and significantly correlated with plant
height, leaf length, leaves per plant, leaf diameter, neck thickness and pungency. This indicated that
the above ground biomass exerted a critical influence on dry matter production. Pungency also
correlated positively and significantly with, leaf diameter, neck thickness and leaves per plant,
indicating that it was influenced by these traits. There was also negative and significant correlation of
pungency with bulb dry weight (Table 3) . This signified that germplasm lines having high bulb dry
weight were less pungent than those having low dry weight.
Total Soluble Solids indicated negative and significant correlation with plant height, leaf diameter, leaf
length and neck thickness, but showed positive significant correlation with bulb dry weight and leaves
per plant. This could be attributed to the production of non- structural carbohydrates facilitated by
higher photosynthetic efficiency of above ground biomass, which might have contributed significantly
36
to soluble solids concentration in the bulb. These observations are in conformity with that of Simon
(1995). The positive and significant correlation between soluble solids and bulb dry weight also is
suggestive of the fact that the concentration of reducing sugar may increase with increase in bulb dry
matter content.
Bulb dry weight showed negative and significant correlation with plant height, leaf diameter and neck
thickness, but it showed positive significant association with leaf length. This probably indicated that
dry matter accumulation is highly dependent on efficient partitioning of photosynthetic products.
Similar observations were recorded by Robinson (1971).
Neck thickness was positively and significantly correlated with plant height ,leaf length leaves per
plant and leaf diameter .This perhaps indicated that the production and increment of fleshy edible
layers and compactness of bulb were influenced by these traits. This is corroborated by the findings of
Padda et al., (1973).
Leaf diameter correlated positively and significantly with plant height and le af length indicating that
the increase in these traits resulted in production of greater leaf area which might be of significance in
relation to bulb yield. Similar observations were recorded by Mittal and Srivastava (1965).
The positive association of pairs of characters signified the possibility of correlated response to
selection and it followed that with the increase in one, there is a possibility of increment in the other
and the negative correlations might preclude the simultaneous improvement of those traits along with
each other.
37
4.4. Path Coefficient Analysis
Phenotypic and genotypic corrleations were analyzed further by path-coefficient technique, which
involved partitioning of the correlation coefficients into direct and indirect effects via alternative
characters or pathways. Bulb yield, being the complex outcome of various characters, was considered
to be the resultant variable, and the rest of the variable viz., biological yield per plant, harvest index per
plant, days to maturity, fresh and dry weights above ground, pungency, total soluble solids, bulb dry
weight, neck thickness, leaf diameter, leaves per plant, leaf length and plant height were the causal
variables. It was observed that each of these characters did influence bulb yield directly or indirectly.
Appreciable residual effects obtained may be due to other traits not included in the present study. The
estimates of direct and indirect effects are presented in Table 4 and 5.
4.4.1. Phenotypic Direct and Indirect Effects of Various Characters on
Bulb Yield Per Plant
Biological yield and harvest index per plant contributed their major effects as direct effects (Table 4).
These characters could be considered as main components of selection in a breeding program for
obtaining higher bulb yield and these characters significantly correlated with each other. The other
characters that had positive direct effects included, plant height (0.168), leaf diameter (0.186), neck
thickness (0.0400) and bulb dry weight (0.0137). All these characters were positively associated with
bulb yield except bulb dry weight in which the net effect in the system of opposing influences via
various characters counterbalanced each other making the over all correlation of bulb yield with this
trait as negative (Table 4). These positive direct effects with other characters kept constant indicated
that by increasing one of these characters, there is a possibility to increase bulb yield. In concurrent to
38
the present result, Singh (1981) found positive direct effect of harvest index, biological yield and plant
height in garlic. In the present study, negative direct effects were extended on bulb yield by number
of leaves (-0.0505 ), total soluble solids (-0.1356) , pungency (-0.0523), fresh weight above ground (-
0.10037), dry weight above ground (-0.0914), and days to maturity (-0.0835). The negative direct
effects of fresh and dry weights above ground on bulb yield was observed to be counterbalanced by
the positive indirect influences via plant height , leaf length , leaf diameter, neck thickness and
biological yield per plant and others with low scale values making the over all correlation between
these traits and bulb yield positive. Similar observations were also recorded by Singh (1981) in garlic.
Leaves per plant exhibited unfavorable indirect effects via all the traits except plant height ,neck
thickness and biological yield per plant .Total soluble solids also showed unfavorable direct effects on
most of the characters studied ( Table 4). In spite of its direct positive effect on bulb yield , harvest
index also demonstrated positive indirect effects through all the characters except bulb dry weight and
biological yield per plant. Leaf diameter exerted favorable indirect effect via plant height, neck
thickness, harvest index per plant and biological yield per plant . The negative correlation of leaves per
plant with bulb yield recorded was mainly due to the sum total of its unfavorable indirect effects via
the characters like fresh and dry weights above ground, days to maturity and harvest index per plant.
Leaves per plant, however, exerted substantial positive indirect effect via biological yield per plant
(Table 4).
The positive direct effect of plant height on bulb yield was counterbalanced by the negative indirect
effect via leaf length . However, other unfavorable indirect effects were outweighed by the favorable
39
indirect effects causing a positive correlation of plant height with bulb yield. The indirect effects of
bulb dry weight on bulb yield was also unfavorable (Table 4) . Similarly pungency also showed
unfavorable indirect effect on bulb yield. Neck thickness demonstrated favorable direct effect on bulb
yield per plant via plant height, leaf diameter, harvest index per plant and biological yield per plant.
In spite of negative direct effect of fresh weight above ground on bulb yield, its positive association
with bulb yield was derived mainly through considerable positive indirect effects via plant height, leaf
length, leaf diameter , neck thickness and biological yield per plant . Dry weight above ground,
favorably influenced bulb yield indirectly via plant height, leaf length , leaf diameter, neck thickness,
and biological yield per plant. Similarly, the positive correlation of days to maturity with bulb yield was
mainly due to the positive indirect effects via plant height, leaf length, leaf diameter, neck thickness
and biological yield per plant.
The above evidences highlight that due consideration should be placed on harvest index, biological
yield per plant, plant height, leaf length, leaf diameter, neck thickness, and fresh weight above ground,
while selecting germplasm lines for desirable characters in onion.
40
4.4.2. Genotypic Direct and Indirect Effects of Various Characters on
Bulb Yield Per Plant.
The path coefficient analysis revealed that dry weight above ground had maximum positive direct
effect ( 3.831 ) followed by leaf diameter ( 1.503 ), plant height (0.538), harvest index per plant
(0.5363), leaves per plant ( 0.443 ) and biological yield per plant (0.4367) (Table 5). Therefore, these
characters are good contributors to bulb yield . This result is in agreement with the findings of Kalloo
et al., (1982 ).
The path coefficient analysis indicated that the various characters influenced the bulb yield favorably
or unfavorably via other characters. Although plant height exerted positive direct effect on bulb yield,
its influence was favorable via leaf length, leaves per plant, bulb dry weight, soluble solids and dry
weight above ground. Similarly leaf length showed favorable indirect effect on bulb yield via plant
height, leaves per plant, leaf diameter, soluble solids and dry weight above ground. Favorable indirect
effect was observed for leaves per plant on bulb yield via plant height, leaf length, dry weight above
ground and harvest index per plant, but it was nullified by the negative indirect effects via neck
thickness, soluble solids, fresh weight above ground and biological yield per plant. Leaf diameter
besides exerting maximum positive direct effect on bulb yield, also showed favorable indirect
influence on bulb yield via plant height, bulb dry weight, soluble solids and dry weight above ground.
Similarly harvest index had positive direct effect on bulb yield and it also had favorable indirect
influence on bulb yield via plant height, leaf diameter, bulb dry weight, soluble solids, pungency, fresh
weight above ground and days to maturity. Majority of the characters studied had high positive
indirect influence between bulb yield and harvest index. Biological yield per plant had positive
direct effect on bulb yield and exerted favorable indirect influence via plant height, leaves per plant
41
,leaf diameter and dry weight above ground.
In spite of its negative direct effect on bulb yield, neck thickness had positive indirect influence on plant
height, leaves per plant, leaf diameter, bulb dry weight, soluble solids and dry weight above ground.
Though its direct effects were negative, bulb dry weight had favorable influence on bulb yie ld via
leaves per plant, neck thickness, pungency , fresh weight above ground and harvest index per plant
.This trait also indicated good favorable indirect influence on pungency. Total Soluble solids had
favorable indirect influence on bulb yield via number of leaves per plant, neck thickness, pungency,
dry weight above ground and harvest index, but its direct effect was negative. Despite its negative
direct effect on bulb yield, pungency displayed
positive indirect effect via plant height, leaves per plant. Leaf diameter ,bulb dry weight, soluble solids,
dry weight above ground and harvest index per plant.
In spite of its negative direct effect on bulb yield, fresh weight above ground showed favorable indirect
positive influence via plant height, le aves per plant ,leaf diameter, bulb dry weight, dry weight above
ground and harvest index. Similarly, dry weight above ground had high direct positive effect on bulb
yield. It also revealed a favorable influence via plant height, leaf diameter, bulb dry weight, dry weight
above ground and harvest index. Days to maturity showed negative direct effect on bulb yield, but the
positive favorable influence was observed between days to maturity and bulb yield via plant height,
leaves per plant, leaf diameter, dry weight above ground and harvest index.
Generally, in addition to the favorable direct effect on bulb yield per plant, majority of the characters
influenced bulb yield positively through harvest index per plant. On the contrary, rest of the characters
42
exerted negligible influence on bulb yield via leaf length . Presence of positive residual effects both at
phenotypic as well as genotypic levels (Table 4 and 5) indicated that some more traits other than the
ones studied might be contributing towards bulb yield.
43
44
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Understanding of the magnitude of variability present in crop plants and the degree of association
between different agronomic characters is of utmost importance as it provided the basis for effective
selection. To generate such an information 24 exotic onion (Allium cepa L.) germplasm lines and
two released local cultivars were evaluated in a replicated trial at Alemaya University Research
Station (Rare) during year 2000 main crop season.
Analysis of variance indicated that there were highly significant differences among the genotypes for
all the traits. Wide range of genetic variability, high heritability in the broad sense and expected
genetic advance were noted, thus highlighting good scope for improvement through selection.
High estimates of broad sense heritability were recorded for fresh weight above ground, yield per
plant, bulb dry weight , leaf diameter, harvest index per plant, total soluble solids, pungency, dry weight
above ground, plant height, leaves per plant, leaf length and biological yield per plant. High heritability
estimates coupled with high genetic advance as per cent of mean were obtained for fresh weight
above ground, yield per plant, harvest index per plant, biological yield per plant, dry weight above
ground, pungency, soluble solids, bulb dry weight, leaf diameter, leaves per plant, leaf length, and plant
height suggesting that selection for these traits would be quite effective.
Bulb yield per plant was positively and significantly correlated with plant height, leaf length, leaf
diameter, neck thickness, fresh and dry weights above ground, harvest index per plant and biological
yield per plant. In path coefficient analysis at genotypic level, plant height, leaves per plant, leaf
diameter and dry weight above ground exerted positive direct effects while neck thickness, bulb dry
45
weight, soluble solids, pungency, fresh weight above ground, days to maturity, harvest index per plant
and biological yield per plant exerted negative direct effects on bulb yield per plant respectively.
In path coefficient analysis, at phenotypic level, positive direct effects on bulb yield per plant were
exerted by plant height, leaf diameter, bulb dry weight, harvest index per plant and biological yield per
plant while the negative direct effects were exerted by soluble solids, pungency, fresh weight above
ground and dry weight above ground, leaves per plant and days to maturity, respectively.
The present investigation by utilizing some exotic germplasm lines, demonstrated the existence of high
genetic variability for the characters studied. A number of characters in the present study were found
to be positively associated with bulb yield per plant and among themselves. As the present
investigation is based on single location, the results need further confirmation across locations.
46
6. REFERENCES
Allard,R.W. 1960. Principles of Plant Breeding . John Willey and Sons Inc., New York, London.
p.485
Anon .1990. Agro-meteorology group ,Remote Sensing Center Research and Technology Division.
FAO. Rome Italy.
Astley , D., Innes, N.L. and Q.P. Van der Meer. 1982. Genetic Resources of Allium spp.
.International Board for plant Genetic Resources, Rome.
Astley, D.1990 . Conservation of Onion Genetic Resources . vol.1. CRC Press. Florida, pp.177-198.
Barta, S.K., Kalloo, and B. Singh. 1983. Combining ability, heterosis and analysis of phenotypic
variation in onion. Haryana J. Hort. Sci., 12:119
Bennet, E. 1945. A note on the presence of pyruvic acid in Ebenezer onions. Plant Physiol .,
20:461- 63.
Bhatt, G.M.1970. Multivariate analysis approach to selection of parents for hybridization aiming at
yield improvement in self pollinated crops. Austral. S.Agric.Res., 21:1-7
Block ,E.1985. The chemistry of onions and garlic. Scientific American, 252:94-99.
Boswell, V.R. 1984. Influence of the time of maturity on yield and storage quality of onion (Allium
cepa L). Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci., 20:225-233.
Brewster, J.L. 1990a . Physiology of Crop Growth and Bulbing . Vol.1. CRC Press , Boca Raton,
Florida, pp. 53- 88.
Brewster, J . L. 1990b. Onion Cultural Systems and Agronomic Practices in Temperate Climates.
Vol. .2 CRC press, Florida, pp.1-30
Briggs,F.N., and P.F. Knowles. 1967. Introduction to Plant Breeding . Reinhold, New York, USA.
p. 426.
Burton , G.W. and E.H. Devane. 1953. Estimation of heritability in Tall Festuca (Festuca
arundinacea) from replicated clonal material. Agron. J. 45:478-481.
Burton, G.W. 1952. Quantitative Inheritance in Grasses. Proceedings of the Sixth International
Grass Congress., 1: 277 -283.
Chadha, M.L.and B. Pauly. 1984. Genetic variability and correlation studies in egg plant. Indian
J.Hort., 41,101.
47
Corgan, J.N. and N. Kedar .1990 . Onion cultivation in subtropical climates. In: Rabinowitch,
H.D. and J.L. Brewster (eds.), Onions and Allied Crops Vol.2.CRC Press , Boca Raton,
Florida, pp31-47.
Darbyshire, B. and R.J.Henry. 1979 The association of fructans with high percentage dry matter in
onion cultivars suitable for dehydrating. J. Sci. Food Agric., 31: 1035- 1038.
Dewey, D.R. and K.H.Lu.1959. A correlation and path coefficient analysis of components of
crested wheat grass seed production Agron .J., 51:515-158.
Dowker, B.D. 1990 .Onion Breeding .vol. .1. CRC Press, Florida, pp.215- 232.
Dowker,B.D., Hardwick ,R.C.,Fennell,J.F.M. and D.J.Andrews,1976. Genotypic and
environmental correlations between leaf growth and bulb size in onion, Ann.App.Biol.,
82,341.
Dubly, J.W. and R.H Moll. 1969. Interpretation and use of estimates of heritability and genetic
variances in plant breeding. Crop Sci., 257-267.
Dudley, J.W. 1997. Quantitative Genetics and Plant Breeding.
Fehr, W.R. 1987. Principles of Cultivar Development. vol. 1. Theory and Technique. MacMillan
Publishing Company , New York, pp356.
Fenwick ,G. R. and A.B., Hanley. 1985a. The genus Allium part 2. CRC Critical Reviews in
Food Science and Nutrition 22:273- 342.
Gomez, K.A and A.A. Gomez. 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. (2
nd
ed.).
John Willey and Sons, New York.p.657.
Hanelt, P.1990. Taxonomy, evolution and history .In: Rabinowitch, H.D. and J.L. Brewster (eds.),
Onions and Allied Crops vol.1. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, pp. 1-26.
Havey, M.J. 1993. Onion (Allium cepa L.). In: Genetic Improvement in vegetable Crops. Eds.: G.
Kalloo and B.O. Berg. Pergamon Press. pp 32-35.
Jackson. T. H. 1987. Improvement of onion production in Ethiopia. In: (ed.) Godfrey-Sam-Aggrey
and BerekeTesehay Tuku. Proceedings of the First Ethiopian Horticultural Workshop.
February 20-22, 1985. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.Pp260-265.
Johnson, C.E. and T.P. Hernandez. 1980, Heritability studies of early and total yield in tomatoes,
Hort. Sci., 15,250.
Johnson, H.W ., Robinson H.F. and R.E. Comstock. 1955. Genotypic and phenotypic correlations in
soybeans and their implications in selection. Agronomy Journal. 47:477-483.
Jones ,R .N. 1990. Cytogenetics. In: Rabinowitch, H.D. and J.L., Brewster (eds.), Onions and
Allied Crops vol. 1.CRC Press , Boca Raton, Florida, pp.199-214.
48
Jones, H. A. and L.K. Mann. 1963. Onions and their Allies. Leonard Hill , London.pp.23-26.
Kalloo J.C, Pandey , S.C., Lal, S. and M.L. Pandita. 1982. Correlation and path analysis studies in
onion (Allium cepa L.), Haryana J.Hortic .Sci., 11:97.
Korla, B.N , Singh ,A.K. and Kalia. 1981. Genetic variability in garlic, Haryana J,Hort. Sci. 10:77.
Lancaster, J.E. .and M. J. Boland. 1990. Flavor Biochemistry. vol. .3. CRC Press. Florida,
pp.33-72
Lemma, D. and E. Herath. 1992. Agronomic studies in Alliums Presented at 2nd National
Horticultural work Shop, December,1992. IAR, Addis Ababa.
Luh ,B.S., Somogyi, L. P. and J.J. Meehan. 1975. Commercial Vegetable Processing. AVI
publishing co. Inc, Westport, CT, USA, pp. 361- 415.
McCollum, G.D. 1968. Heritability and genetic correlation of soluble solids ,bulb size and shape in
white sweet Spanish Onion. Can .J. Genet .Cytol., 10: 508-514.
Miller, P.A, Williams, J.C., Robinson H.F. and R.E. Comstock. 1958. Estimates of genotypic and
environmental variances in upland cotton and their implications in selection. Agron. J. ,
50:126-131
Mittal, S.P. and G. Srivastava. 1965. Bulb yield in relation to bulb size, plant height and leaf length in
onion (Allium cepa L.). Indian J. Hort., 21:264-269.
Mondal, M.F, Brewster, J.L., Morris, G.E.L. and H.A. Bulter. 1986. Bulb Development in Onion
(Allium cepa L. ). J. of Bot., 58,187-195.
Moot, D.J. and D.L. McNeil .1995. Yield components, harvest index and plant type in relation to
yield differences in field pea. Euphytica, 86:31-40.
Morgan. E.J. 1946. Pyruvic acid in the juice of onion ( Allium cepa L.). Nature, 157: 512.
Owen, E.W. 1961. The inheritance of dry matter in onion bulbs. J. Genet., 40:292-297.
Padda, D.S., Singh, G. and M.S. Saimbhi. 1973 . Genetic Variability and correlations in onion .
Indian J. Hort,, 30: 391- 393.
Pal. N. and N. Singh . 1988. Analysis of genetic architecture of pungency (Pyruvic acid ) in Onion.
Euphytica, 80, 379.
Pandey S. and E.T. Gritton .1975. Genotypic and phenotypic correlations in peas. Crop Sci. , 15:353-
356.
49
Panse, V.G. 1957. Genetics of quantitative characters in relation to plant breeding. Indian J.Genet
and Pl. Breed., 17:318-328.
Pathak, C.S. 1994. Allium improvement in the tropics: Problems and AVRDC Strategy. Acta.
Hort., 358:23-29.
Patil, R.S .and P.N. Kale. 1985. Correlation studies on bulb characteristics and storage losses in
onion. J. Maharashtra Agric. Univ., 10:38.
Pike, L.M. 1986. Breeding Vegetable Crops. AVI publishing Co, Connecticut, pp. 357- 394.
Rabionowitch, H.D. 1988. Genetics and Breeding; Proceedings of the 4th Eucarpia Allium
Symposium. Institute of Horticultural Research ,Welles Bourne, UK, pp. 57- 69.
Robinson, J.C. 1971. Studies on the performance and growth of various short day onion varieties
(Allium cepa L.) in the Rhodesian low veld in relation to date of sowing. 1. Yield and quality
analysis. Rhod. Agric. , J. 9:31-38.
Sandhu, J.S. and B.N. Korla. 1976. Inter-relationship between economic characters and selection
indices in onion seed crop. Indian J. Hort., 33:170-172.
Schwimmer. S. and W.J. Weston .1961. Enzymatic development of pyruvic acid in onion as a
measure of pungency .J. Agr. Food Chem. , 9:301- 304.
Simmonds, N.W. 1986. Princples of Crop Improvement. LongMan, Singapore.p.495.
Simon ,P.W. 1992. Onion Improvement Newsletter for 1991. Dept of Horticulture, University of
Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Simon, P.W. 1995. Genetic analysis of pungency and soluble solids in long storage onions (Allium
cepa L.) . Euphytica. 82:1-8.
Singh, B.D. 1990. Plant Breeding. Kalyani Publishers, NewDelhi. India.p.702.
Singh, R.P, 1981. Genetics evaluation and path analysis in onion. Madras Agric, J., 68:618.
Tamire H. 1973. Characterization of Alemaya Soils. Soil Science Paper, Series No,1. p.45.
Vavrina , C. S. and D.A. Smittle , 1993 . Evaluating sweet onion cultivars for sugar
concentration and pungency . Hort. Sci., 28: 804- 806.
Waller ,M.M. and J.N. Corgan. 1992. Relationship between pyruvate analysis and lavor perception
for onion pungency determination . Hort. Sci., 27: 1029- 1030.
Warid, W.A. 1952. Inheritance studies in the onion. Amer.J. Hort. Sci., 9: 301-304.
Welsh, J.R. 1981. Fundamentals of Plant Genetics and Breeding . Willey, New York, USA.
50
p.299.
Whitaker, J.R. 1976. Development of flavor, odour and pungency in onion and garlic. Adv. Food
Res., 22:73- 133.
Yamaguchi, M, Paulson, K.N., Kinsella, M.N. and R.A. Bernhard. 1975 . Effects of soil
temperature on growth and quality of onion bulbs (Allium cepa L.) used for
dehydration. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci., 100: 415-419.
51
APPENDICES
52
Appendix Table 1. Mean Performance for various characters of onion (Allium cepa L.) germplasm lines.
No. Treatment PH LL LP LD NT BD BL BDW TSS PCY FWAG DWAG DTM YPP HIPP BYPP
1. AC2-I 59.60 48.67 10.94 11.52 1.95 8.07 6.57 12.20 12.20 0.064 105.51 12.42 118.33 85 0.035 19.25
2. AC8-I 61.67 50.67 14.20 2.07 2.35 8.92 6.87 13.40 12.33 0.063 167.43 15.58 118.33 103 0.036 36.58
3. AC11-I 62.38 52.0 14.67 2.53 2.74 8.01 5.34 10.56 13.53 0.356 193.68 22.16 125.00 70 0.021 15.80
4. AC383-I 57.93 47.47 22.87 1.74 2.27 8.17 5.81 12.83 13.33 0.198 181.90 17.98 115.00 113 0.037 25.40
5. AC50-I 64.13 52.60 25.20 2.38 2.71 7.84 6.51 10.60 12.13 0.125 188.32 20.00 125.00 112 0.038 17.65
6. AC726(A)-C 74.87 63.53 19.93 3.19 3.28 7.95 7.56 9.20 12.13 0.134 511.98 42.94 125.00 220 0.043 97.30
7. AC727(A)-C 80.07 68.40 22.60 3.00 3.15 8.35 7.39 9.90 9.80 0.099 554.64 45.45 118.33 253 0.046 116.30
8. Yello granex 54.40 45.88 11.00 2.00 1.83 8.08 5.66 11.53 10.93 0.128 112.43 14.15 111.67 113 0.044 14.10
9. Red creole 68.20 58.53 26.4 2.79 2.63 8.62 7.44 9.67 11.73 0.361 559.93 48.94 125.00 168 0.028 57.68
10. Texas grano
502
74.73 65.53 16.67 2.82 2.92 9.09 7.98 5.40 6.23 0.076 251.88 25.92 111.67 300 0.098 129.67
11. Agrifound darh
Red
54.93 44.80 22.00 1.73 2.27 8.35 5.77 7.50 11.36 0.123 167.27 15.29 111.67 120 0.053 24.73
12. Arka Niketan 60.27 49.73 14.4 2.17 2.08 8.08 5.83 10.73 10.83 0.056 170.41 17.32 111.67 193 0.066 55.30
13. Regia 68.20 57.4 16.07 3.19 2.57 8.93 7.96 5.96 7.33 0.080 194.41 20.42 105.00 290 0.121 142.70
14. Xp8403 56.33 46.93 12.87 2.28 2.25 8.28 6.74 7.23 10.13 0.159 130.85 14.50 108.33 170 0.080 44.30
15. Super high gold
No1
70.60 62.07 19.27 2.85 3.01 9.18 7.43 3.93 6.20 0.066 264.21 25.82 115.00 200 0.071 60.37
16. Gladiator 80.4 68.4 17.47 3.81 3.48 9.41 7.71 6.03 9.16 0.118 581.51 45.76 125.00 265 0.051 73.40
17. Rouge de Tana 58.27 48.93 16.80 1.98 2.13 8.44 6.61 8.13 8.63 0.088 108.41 11.90 121.67 116 0.059 46.83
18. Cristal PRR 67.53 56.6 16.13 2.68 2.67 9.73 9.31 4.17 7.50 0.102 237.90 20.03 115.00 230 0.097 43.93
19. Kalipaitiya 57.73 47.0 35.53 1.81 2.69 7.02 5.43 11.10 15.00 0.136 472.75 42.68 121.67 73 0.014 10.97
20. Bombey Red 58.53 48.8 26.53 2.06 2.78 6.59 5.22 9.03 11.03 0.102 165.85 17.79 108.33 143 0.055 41.37
21. N53 57.4 49.2 21.73 2.11 2.61 9.01 6.66 7.36 9.76 0.130 170.33 16.71 121.67 120 0.051 26.73
22. White Hawk 71.13 62.2 20.8 2.72 2.77 9.13 7.78 4.43 6.83 0.122 280.38 25.16 115.00 213 0.072 74.07
23. Sebaquena 55.13 43.73 14.73 2.26 3.11 9.29 7.47 5.53 10.06 0.091 217.90 25.43 125.00 100 0.033 38.40
24. Granex 429 76.8 64.2 19.60 3.38 3.30 9.68 9.07 6.10 6.87 0.126 351.15 30.24 121.67 306 0.085 83.67
25. Adama Red 53.0 44.07 20.47 2.09 2.59 8.89 6.74 9.30 11.53 0.103 170.63 17.37 121.67 120 0.046 32.83
26. Melkam
65.53 55.93 22.67 2.36 2.85 7.39 5.55 9.10 9.93 0.186 235.37 23.18 118.33 118 0.038 33.22
LSD 11.28 11.01 7.46 0.68 0.76 2.83 3.54 3.22 2.89 0.28 143.40 14.56 11.47 83 0.002 43.85
PH= Plant Height; LL= Leaf Length; LP= Leaves per Plant; LD= Leaf Diameter; NT= Neck Thickness; BD= Bulb Diameter; BL= Bulb Length; BDW= Bulb Dry Weight; TSS= Total Soluble
Solids; PCY= Pungency; FWAG= Fresh Weight Above Ground; DWAG= Dry Weight Above Ground; DTM= Days To Maturity; YPP= Yield Per Plant; HIPP= Harvest Index Per Plant;
BYPP= Biological Yield Per Plant.
53
Appendix Table 2. Analysis of variance for RCB design for 16 characters in onion (Allium cepaL.).
Source of
Variation
D.F. Plant
Height
Leaf
Length
Leaves
per Plant
Leaf
Diameter
Neck
Thickness
Bulb
Diameter
Bulb
Length
Bulb Dry
Weight
Total Soluble
Solids
Pungenc
y
Fresh Weight
Above Ground
Replication 2 168.124 119.547 11.685 1.342 0.373 1.129 3.478 2.166 1.155 0.00013 23030.208
Germplasm Line 25 206.895** 186.423** 91.536** 0.985 0.550 1.821** 3.676** 22.568 16.884 0.003 66707.108
Error 50 25.616 25.363 11.628 0.097 0.122 1.674 2.626 2.164 1.751 0.00034 4300
CV(%) 7.88 9.33 17.68 12.74 13.17 15.26 23.63 17.31 12.91 17.02 25.27
Table 2 Continued
Source of Variation D.F. Dry Weight Above
Ground
Days to
Maturity
Yield Per Plant
Harvest Index Per
Plant
Biological Yield Per
Plant
Replication 2 197.553 11.538 0.610 0.000013 113
Germplasm Line 25 382.471** 109.383** 1.613** 0.002 384.27**
Error 50 2218.17 27.538 0.147 0.000001 50.109
CV(%) 27.26 4.46 23.06 27.13 21.5
** - Indicates significant differences at 0.01 probability level
iv
Appendix Table 3. Mean value for 12 high yilding entries
S.n. Germplasm lines Yield Per Plant
1 Granex 429 306
2 Texas Grano 300
3 Regia 290
4 Gladiator 265
5 AC 727 (A)-C 253
6 Cristal PRR 230
7 AC726 (A)-C 220
8 White Hawk 210
9 Supper High Gold N0.1 200
10 Arka Niketan 193
11 Xp8403 170
12 Red Creole 168
v
Appendix Table 4. Monthly Mean and Annual Rainfall (mm) for 1991-2000 at Alemaya.
Year Jan. Feb. March April May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Yearly
tot.
1991 Nil 51.7
(7)
136.2
(14)
73.2
(13)
58.6
(15)
20.2
(5)
109.1
(12)
104.7
(16)
120.1
(17)
25
(4)
nil 52
(5)
750.6
1992 3.9(3) 11.1
(3)
18.2
(4)
85.2
(11)
72.1
(10)
68.3
(10)
78.5
(4)
97.6
(12)
107.3
(11)
39.4
(5)
10.4
(4)
4.1
(1)
596.1
1993 60.6
(6)
52.1
(6)
24.1
(1)
126.5
(18)
164.6
(17)
45.8
(4)
59.9
(11)
76.4
(13)
57
(12)
- - - 667.0
1994 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1995 - - 2)5. 151.5 22.0 20.2 194.3 131.1 129.0 0.0 0.0 6.6 680.9
1996 47.0
(5)
12.4
(5)
32.5
(6)
144.4
(17)
169.4
(5)
81.8
(15)
92.1
(10)
151.2
(16)
147.7
(12)
0.0 32.7 (4) 0.0 911.2
1997 Nil nil 78.1 (9) 125.4 155.9
(17)
59.8
(14)
148.7
(14)
111.2
(18)
57.7 204.1
(16)
54.5
(13)
nil 995.3
1998 86.5
(12)
51.0
(5)
33.7 (9) 59.9 (9) 55.4
(9)
24.8
(9)
116.5
(16)
104.5
(17)
175.7
(23)
54
(10)
21.
(2)
nil 783.3
1999 Nil 3.7
(4)
68.3
(12)
72.1
(10)
96.3
(15)
30
(11)
95.2
(18)
238.3
(20)
145.8
(16)
135.7
(15)
15.6 (2) 4.9
(1)
905.9
2000 Nil nil 6.3
(3)
138.6
(16)
95.1
(13)
18.9
(5)
82.7
(22)
141.5
(16)
109.4
(18)
16.6
(6)
104.2
(7)
4.8
(1)
718.1
Source: Alemaya Weather Station.
Numbers in parenthesis are number of rainy days.
- = Data not available
vi
Appendix table 5. Monthly mean and annual minimum and maximum air temperature (
o
c) for 1991 to 2000, at Alemaya.
Year Tem
.
Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Ave.
Min 5.8 8.9 12.7 12.1 12.9 14.2 16.1 16.1 15.5 10.0 6.0 4.7 11.3 1991
Max 24.3 23.8 24.9 24.4 25.4 26.1 21.6 22.8 21.9 23.6 23.6 21.9 23.7
Min 7.8 10.4 11.4 13.0 14.2 13.9 13.6 13.1 11.8 7.5 5.6 8.3 10.9 1992
Max 22.9 23.0 26.3 26.0 26.1 24.8 24.4 23.3 23.4 24.2 23.1 23.0 24.2
Min 8.9 10.1 9.0 14.0 12.9 14.2 12.7 13.0 13.0 - - - 12.1 1993
Max 22.0 21.8 25.6 23.7 23.5 24.5 23.5 24.5 24.0 - - - 23.7
Min - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1994
Max - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Min - - - - 13.3 13.5 13.2 11.7 6.8 6.8 2.5 6.3 10.2 1995
Max - - - - 26.1 23.0 22.3 23.9 24.7 24.7 22.9 22.5 23.9
Min 8.1 4.8 12.7 11.4 12.7 13.2 13.1 13.2 12.4 6.2 4.2 2.0 9.5 1996
Max 23.5 24.7 25.8 24.8 24.2 22.4 22.7 25.0 24.6 24.4 24.4 22.5 24.0
Min 7.08 2.82 10.8 11.6 12.8 13.7 13.2 13.5 13.0 10.5 9.1 7.5 9.34 1997
Max 23.5 23.6 25.9 23.6 24.5 23.9 23.4 24.0 24.7 22.8 21.9 21.7 23.6
Min 9.7 11.1 12.1 11.8 - - - - - 8.9 3.2 1.0 8.25 1998
Max 22.0 20.0 25.5 26.9 26.1 26.9 23.9 23.0 23.4 23.0 28.3 22.1 24.2
Min 4.6 5.1 11.3 11.3 13.2 13.8 12.9 13.4 12.1 10.3 3.4 2.8 9.51 1999
Max 23.2 26.5 23.6 26.0 25.3 24.3 28.5 23.3 23.1 22.2 22.3 21.8 24.2
Min 2.6 3.35 7.93 11.9 14.1 13.9 13.2 12.8 13.4 8.0 6.7 3.0 9.24 2000
Max 23.0 24.7 26.0 26.0 24.5 25.0 24.0 23.1 23.4 23.6 22.6 22.3 24.0
Source: Alemaya Weather Station.
- = Data not available.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
BIOGRAPHIC SKETCH...........................................................................................................i
ACKNOWLEDEGMENT
ii.
LIST OF TABLES . vi
LIST OF APPENDICES .. vii
ABSTRACT ..viii
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................1
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE.............................................................................................. 11
2.1. Variability............................................................................................................... 11
2.1.1. Phenotypic and Genotypic Variation............................................................... 11
2.2. Heritability.............................................................................................................. 11
2.3. Expected Genetic Advance..................................................................................... 12
2.4. Association of characters........................................................................................ 13
2.4.1. Correlation Analysis ...................................................................................... 13
2.5. Path Coefficient Analysis........................................................................................ 14
2.6. Flavor and Odour.................................................................................................... 14
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS....................................................................................... 16
3.1. Testing Location..................................................................................................... 16
3.2. Experimental Materials ........................................................................................... 16
3.3. Experimental Design and Field Management ........................................................... 16
3.4. Data Collection....................................................................................................... 18
3.5. Statistical Procedures.............................................................................................. 20
3.5.1. Analysis of Variance..................................................................................... 20
3.5.2. Phenotypic and Genotypic Variability............................................................. 20
3.5.3. Heritability in the Broad Sense....................................................................... 21
3.5.4. Expected Genetic Advance ........................................................................... 21
3.5.4.1. Genetic Advance as a Per cent of Mean 15
3.5.5. Correlation Analysis..................................................................................... 22
3.5.6. Path Coefficient Analysis .............................................................................. 23
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION......................................................................................... 24
viii
4.1. Analysis of Variance .............................................................................................. 24
4.2. Variability Studies................................................................................................... 24
4.2.1. Estimates of Range and Mean....................................................................... 24
4.2.2. Estimates of Phenotypic and Genotypic Variability............................................ 28
4.2.3. Estimates of Heritability (h
2
) in Broad Sense.................................................... 29
4.2.4. Estimates of Expected Genetic Advance (GA) 31
4.3. Association of Characters...................................................................................... 32
4.3.1. Estimates of Correlation Coefficients at Genotypic (r
g
) and Phenotypic
(r
p
) Levels.......................................................................................... 32
4.3.1.1. Correlation of Bulb Yield Per Plant With Its
Components 25
4.3.1.2. Correlation Among Other Characters 28
4.4. Path Coefficient Analysis...................................................................................... 38
4.4.1. Phenotypic Direct and Indirect Effects of Various Characters on bulb
yield per plant ................................................................................................ 38
4.4.2. Genotypic Direct and Indirect Effects of Various Characters on Bulb
Yield Per Plant. ............................................................................................ 42
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION................................................................................... 46
6. REFERENCES.................................................................................................................... 48
APPENDICES........................................................................................................................ 53
ix
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
Table 1. Source, Description and Origin of the Test Genotypes..................................................... 17
Table 2. Estimates of mean, range, coefficient of variation phenotypic (PCV) and
genotypic (GCV) levels, phenotypic (
2
p
) and genotypic (
2
g
) variances,
heritability in broad sense (h
2
), genetic advance (GA) and genetic advance
as per cent of means for various characters. ................................................................... 26
Table 3. Estimation of correlation coefficients at genotypic (above diagonal) and
phenotypic (below diagonal) levels of various characters in onion germplasm lines
and three checks............................................................................................................... 27
Table 4. Phenotypic direct (bold face) and indirect effects of various characters on bulb
yield per plant .................................................................................................................. 34
Table 5. Genotypic direct (bold face) and indirect effects of various characters on bulb
yield per plant .................................................................................................................... 38
x
LIST OF APPENDICES
PAGE
Appendix Table 1. Mean Performance for Various Characters of Onion
(Allium cepa L.) Germplasm Lines 47
Appendix Table 2. Analysis of Variance for RCB Design for 16 Characters
in Onion (Allium cepa L. ) 48
Appendix Table 3. Mean value for 12 high yielding entries 49
Appendix Table 4. Monthly Meam and Annual Rainfall (mm) for 1991-2000
at Alemaya 50
Appendix Table 5. Monthly Mean and Annual Minimum and Maximum
Air Temperature (C) for 1991-2000 at Alemaya 51