Heterotic response of hybrids for yield and its contributing characters in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.)

Introduction

Sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) is one of the most important oilseed crops in the world and ranked third after soybean and rapeseed in the production of oil globally. Earlier it was domesticated as a food crop in North America but commercial cultivation of sunflower started in 1969 after its introduction from former USSR. Because of its light-yellow colour, pleasant flavour, high level of linoleic acid (55-60%), low oleic acid (25-30%), fairly high oil content of poly unsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) and absence of linolenic acid, it is considered as premium source of oil compared to the other vegetables oils (Atlagic, 1996) [5] . It contains vitamin K and E (Anonymous, 2021) [2] . During the year 2020-21 area under sunflower cultivation in India was 218.18 lakh ha with production of 365.65 lakh tonnes and productivity of 1269 kg/ha. In Maharashtra area under sunflower cultivation was 0.02 million ha with production of about 0.01 million tonnes and average productivity of 507 kg/ha. (Anonymous, 2021) [1] . With the increase in demand for edible oils, there is need to develop new sunflower hybrids suited to different agro-climatic zones of Maharashtra with improved seed yield and oil content. The phenomenon of heterosis is directly related to hybrid Vigour which in turns plays an important role in the expression of seed yield. In view of the above facts, the present study was undertaken to estimate the average heterosis, heterobeltiosis and standard heterosis for seed yield and yield contributing characters.

Materials and Methods

Six CMS lines viz., DSF-2 A, CMS-148 A, CMS-47 A, CMS-597 A, CMS-103 A, CMS-112 A and eight restorer lines viz., RHA-1055, EC-601951-1, EC-601924, R-274, LTRR-341, AKSF-15R, BK-R-1, R-856 were planted during Kharif-2023 at Oilseeds Research Station, Latur and crossing was performed in line x tester fashion to produce 48 hybrids. During evaluation, the 48 hybrids along with their parents and two standard checks viz., LSFH-171 and KBSH-44 were evaluated in a Randomized Block Design replicated twice during Rabi 2023-2024. Observations were recorded for ten quantitative characters in each entry on randomly selected five plants viz. plant height (cm), head diameter (cm), seed filling (%), 100 seed weight, volume weight (g/100 ml), hull content (%) oil content (%) and seed yield per plant (g) except days to 50 per cent flowering and days to maturity which were recorded on plot basis. Data obtained were subjected to line x tester analysis. Heterosis for various traits was estimated as percent increase or decrease of the hybrid over best standard check as per the procedure suggested by Fonesca and Patterson (1968) [7] .

Results and Discussion

The analysis of variance for various characters under study is presented in Table 1. The variation among treatments was highly significant for all of the characters. This indicates presence of substantial genetic variability for the characters studied. The parents revealed highly significant variation for plant height, seed filling and seed yield per plant. The hybrids revealed highly significant variation for all the characters under study. The comparison of parent vs hybrids showed significant differences for all the characters except days to maturity, hull content and oil content. For hull content, the analysis of the data showed that the range of heterosis over mid parent was CMS-148 A x EC-601924 (-15.62%) to DSF-2 A x EC-601951-1 (3.49%). Among 48 hybrids, thirty-five showed negative and zero showed positive significant mid parent heterosis. The range of heterosis over better parent estimated was from CMS-148 A x EC-601924 (-22.31%) to DSF-2 A x EC-601951-1 (3.32%). Out of 48 hybrids; forty-one revealed negative and zero revealed negative heterobeltiosis. Forty-three crosses and forty-one crosses demonstrated negative significant heterosis over both checks LSFH-171 and KBSH-44. None of the cross showed positive heterosis over both the checks. Mid parent heterosis for oil content was ranged from CMS-148 A x EC-601924 (28.65%) to DSF-2 A x EC-601951-1 (-6.49%). Among 48 hybrids, forty-one showed positive and two showed negative significant mid parent heterosis. Heterobeltiosis ranged from CMS-597 A x R-274 (23.29%) to CMS-112 A x R-856 (-14.04%). Amongst 48 hybrids, twenty-nine revealed positive and eight revealed negative heterobeltiosis. The range of standard heterosis over check LSFH-171 was from (0.91%) DSF-2 A x EC-601951-1 to (45.15%) CMS-47 A x EC-601924. All the hybrid showed significant positive heterosis over check LSFH-171 except DSF-2 A x EC-601951-1. Out of 48 hybrids, the crosses CMS-47 A x EC-601924 (45.15, 43.31), DSF-2 A x EC-601924 (40.57, 38.89), CMS-148 A x EC-601924 (40.22, 38.54), CMS-112 A x EC-601924 (37.79, 38.12) and CMS-47 A x RHA-1055 (39.06, 37.4) recorded significant positive standard heterosis over both the checks. For seed yield per plant, mid parent heterosis ranged from CMS-112 A x BK-R-1 (-59.17%) to CMS-47 A x R-856 (366.51%). Out of 48 hybrids, thirty-nine revealed positive and three revealed negative mid parent heterosis. The heterosis over better parent estimated range from CMS-47 A x EC-601951-1 (282.28%) to CMS-112 A x BK-R-1 (-72.38%). Out of 48 hybrids; thirty-two hybrids revealed positive and four hybrids revealed negative heterobeltiosis. The heterosis over check LSFH-171 ranged from (47.62%) CMS-47 A x EC-601924 to (-72.38%) CMS-112 A x BK-R-1. Similarly, heterosis over KBSH-44 ranged from (-68.31%) CMS-112 A x BK-R-1 to (69.4%) CMS-47 A x EC-601924. Out of the 48 hybrids, six crosses demonstrated positive and twenty-two crosses negative significant heterosis over check LSFH-171 and eighteen crosses showed positive and nine crosses showed negative significant heterosis over check KBSH-44. Comparable types of results were reported by Chandra et al. (2013) [5] , Deshmukh et al. (2016) [6] , Spoorthy and Nadaf (2016) [17] , Rathi et al. (2016) [14] , Sapkale et al. (2016) [15] , Shamshad et al. (2016) [16] , Lakshman et al. (2018) [12] . Kulkarni and Supriya (2017) [10] , Bhoite et al. (2018) [4] , Ailwar et al. (2020) [1] , Karande et al. (2020) [9] , Tyagi et al. (2020) [18] , Pole et al. (2020) [13] , Kumari et al. (2022) [11] and Jadhao et al. (2023) [8] .

Conclusion

A key factor that determines the breeding strategy in all breeding programme is the quantity of seed produced per plant. While various yield component features may have a direct or indirect influence on yield. The seed yield per plant was shown to be higher in five single crosses: CMS-47 x EC-601924, CMS-112 x AKSF-15R, CMS-47 x AKSF-15R, CMS-47 x R-274 and CMS-112 x EC-601924. These crosses also showed significantly higher heterotic estimations than both checks.

References

1. Ailwar BP, Ghodke MK, Tathe RG. Heterosis for yield and yield contributing traits in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Electron J Plant Breed. 2020;11(3):950953.
2. Anonymous. Agricultural Statistics at a Glance. 2021.
3. Atlagić J. Cytogenetic studies in hexaploid Helianthus species and their F1 hybrids with cultivated sunflower. Plant Breed. 1996;115(4):257-260.
4. Bhoite KD, Dubey RB, Vyas M, Mundra SL, Ameta KD. Evaluation of combining ability and heterosis for seed yield in breeding lines of sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) using Line x Tester analysis. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2018;7(5):1457-1464.
5. Chandra BS, Ranganatha ARG. Heterosis studies for seed yield and its components in sunflower hybrids over locations. Madras Agric J. 2013;100(1).
6. Deshmukh YV, Salunke CB, Bhosale SV. Heterosis study for yield and oil content in sunflower. J Oilseeds Res. 2016;34(7):2167-2172.
7. Fonesca S, Patterson FL. Hybrid vigour in seven-parent diallel cross in common winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Crop Sci. 1968;8:85-88.
8. Jadhao R, Sakhare S, Fatak S. Heterotic response of hybrids for yield and its contributing characters in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Pharma Innov J. 2023;12(8):1203-1209.
9. Karande PH, Ghodke MK, Misal AM, Tavadare PL. Combining ability and gene action analysis in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Electron J Plant Breed. 2020;11(4):1026-1031.
10. Kulkarni VV, Supriya SM. Heterosis and combining ability studies for yield and yield component traits in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2017;6(9):3346-3357.
11. Kumari S, Sheoran RK, Godara P. Study of heterosis in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). J Agric Res Technol. 2022:152-166.
12. Lakshman SS, Chakraborty NR, Ghodke MK, Kole PC. Studies on heterosis and heterobeltiosis for seed yield and yield attributing traits of sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) in high saline soil of West Bengal. J Crop Weed. 2018;14(1):90-98.
13. Pole SP, Kalpande HV, Toprope VN, Zate DK. Heterotic behaviour of sunflower hybrids in different environments. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2020;9(6):426-430.
14. Rathi SR, Nichal SS, Vaidya ER, Wandhare MR, Janjal SM. Heterosis for yield, its components and oil content in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Int J Trop Agric. 2016;34(4):1063-1072.
15. Sapkale RB, Shinde SR, Pawar RM. Heterosis studies in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Int J Plant Sci. 2016;11(1):22-27.
16. Shamshad M, Dhillion SK, Kaur G. Heterosis for oil content and oil quality in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Curr Adv Agric Sci. 2016;8(1):44-48.
17. Spoorthi V, Nadaf HL. Estimation of heterosis for agronomically important traits in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Bioscan. 2016;11(4):2981-2986.
18. Tyagi V, Dhillon SK, Kaur G, Kaushik P. Heterotic effect of different cytoplasmic combinations in sunflower hybrids cultivated under diverse irrigation regimes. Plants. 2020;9:465.