EVALUATION OF S1 LINE OF MAIZE (ZEA MAYS L.) FOR FODDER RELATED ATTRIBUTES

R. TERON¹*, S.B. NEOG², N.S. BARUA³, K. DAS⁴, S.N. PHUKAN^5
1Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics, Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat, 785013, Assam, India
²Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics, Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat, 785013, Assam, India
³Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics, Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat, 785013, Assam, India
⁴Department of Crop Physiology, Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat, 785013, Assam, India
⁵Department of Agricultural Statistics, Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat, 785013, Assam, India
* Corresponding Author : rangbamonteron@yahoo.com

Received : 20-03-2020     Accepted : 13-04-2020     Published : 15-04-2020
Volume : 12     Issue : 7       Pages : 9678 - 9682
Int J Agr Sci 12.7 (2020):9678-9682

Keywords : ANOVA, Correlation, Dry matter yield, Green forage yield, Heritability
Academic Editor : Dr R. K. Mathukia, Dr T. Kumareswari, Oluk Aylin C.
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Authors are thankful to Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics, Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat, 785013, Assam, India
Author Contribution : All authors equally contributed

The present investigation was conducted at Instructional-Cum-Research (ICR) farm of Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat during rabi 2016-17 (selfing) and rabi 2017-18 (evaluation) with twenty-five forage maize (Zea mays L.) germplasms laid out in randomized block design to evaluate the performance of these germplasms for forage breeding. It was aimed to study the extent of genetic variation among the genotypes in respect of a set of morpho-physiological characters, mean performances of the genotypes, correlation and path coefficient analysis, interrelationship of various characters and the causal relationship of yield attributing characters with the green forage yield. The analysis of variance revealed significant variation for all the characters except leaves per plant, leaf-stem ratio, crude protein content and dry matter percent. So, these four characters were not considered for further analysis. The estimates of phenotypic coefficient of variation were higher than those of genotypic variation for all the characters which indicated the influence of environment on the characters. Dry matter yield, green forage yield, per day productivity of dry matter yield and green forage yield, leaf area, ears per plant, leaf breadth, leaf length, plant height, ear height, stem diameter and total carbohydrate content revealed high heritability with high genetic advance, which indicated that these traits were under the control of additive gene action and also could be used as a selection criteria in forage breeding programme. Correlation study revealed that the genotypic correlation coefficients were higher than their corresponding phenotypic correlation coefficients indicating that genotypic correlations were stronger and reliable. The highest positive direct effect on green forage yield at genotypic level was recorded for leaf area, followed by total carbohydrate content, dry matter yield, per day productivity of dry matter yield, leaf breadth, ears per plant and plant height respectively.

1. Akhtar S., Oki M.Y. and Adachi A. (2007) Common Soil Sc. Plant Anal., 38, 2659- 2679.
2. Fisher R.A. (1918) Royal Soc., 3, 399-433.
3. Dewey D. and Lu K.M. (1959) Agronomy Journal, 51, 515-518.
4. Murugan S., Padmanaban J. and Manirajan S. (2010) International Journal of Plant Sciences, 5(1), 290-293.
5. Srivas S.K. and Singh U.P. (2010) Indian Journal of Plant Genetic Resources, 23(2), 217-220.
6. Tomar S.S., Sivakumar S. and Ganesamurthy K. (2012) Electron. J. Plant Breed., 3(2), 806-810.
7. Ali S., Rahman H., Raziuddin, Shah S.S. and Hassan G. (2006) Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, 9, 2618-2623.
8. Sumathi P., Madineni S. and Veerabadhiran P. (2010) Electronic Journal of Plant Breeding, 1 (4), 437-440.
9. Idris A.E., Abuali A.I. (2011) International Research Journal of Agricultural Science and Soil Science,1(10),407-411.
10. Nagabhushan, Mallikarjuna N.M., Haradari C., Shashibhaskar M.S. and Prahalada G.D. (2011) Current Biotica, 5(2), 157-163.
11. Jain S.K. and Patel P.R. (2012) International Journal of Agriculture Sciences, 4(2), 182-185.
12. Mohammad B., Reddy M.B. and Mohammad S. (1999) Crop Res., 17, 85-89.
13. Singh J.M. and Dash B. (2000) Environment and Ecology, 18(2), 503-505.
14. Srivas S.K. and Singh U.P. (2004) Range management and Agroforestry, 25(2), 149-153.
15. Macwana S., Yadvendra J.P. and Patel J.S. (2005) Forage Research, 31(2), 140-141.
16. Malik H.N., Malik S.I., Hussain M., Chughtai S.R. and Javed H.I. (2005) Journal of Agriculture and Social Science, 1(3), 262-265.
17. Wali M.C., Salimath P.M., Prashanth M. and Harlapur S.I. (2006) Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 19(4), 932-935.
18. Patel D.A., Patel J.S., Bhatt M.M. and Bhatt H.M. (2005) Research on Crops, 6(3), 502-504.
19. Bhoite K.D., Pardeshi S.R. and Mhaske B.M. (2007) Agricultural Science Digest, 27(2), 146-147.