ESTIMATION OF GENETIC VARIABILITY AND EFFICIENCY OF SELECTION FOR GRAIN YIELD AND ITS COMPONENTS IN TWO WHEAT CROSSES(Triticum aestivum L.)

1. SEMINAR PRESENTATION
ON
ESTIMATION OF GENETIC VARIABILITY AND EFFICIENCY OF SELECTION FOR GRAIN
YIELD AND ITS COMPONENTS IN TWO WHEAT CROSSES(Triticum aestivum L.)
Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding,
Allahabad School of Agriculture,
Sam Higginbottom Institute of Agriculture, Technology & Sciences
(Formerly Allahabad Agriculture Institute)
Deemed-to-be-University
Allahabad, UP
2016
PRESENTED BY
NAVEEN JAKHAR
ID. No.-14MSCGPB029

2. Detail of research paper
Introduction
Objectives
Materials and methods
Observation were recorded
Statistical analysis
Results and discussion
Conclusion
References
CONTENT

3. DETAIL OF RESEARCH PAPER
 International Journal of Agriculture and Crop Sciences
 Volume 7, Issue 2, June 2014
 ISSN 2227-670X
 Estimate of Genetic Variability and Efficiency of Selection for Grain yield and Its
Components in Two Wheat Crosses(Triticum aestivum L.)
Published By-
 Mohamed A. Abd El-Shafi
 Agronomy Department Faculty of Agriculture, Cairo University, El-Gamma Street, P.O. Box
12613 Giza, Egypt.

4. INTRODUCTION
Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) is the most important food crop of the
world and ranks first among all the cereals.
Individual plant selection in early segregating generations for
quantitatively inherited traits such as grain yield has met with limited
success. This impedition may due to several factors such as polygenic
nature, low heritability of a trait (grain yield, number of spike per
plant, etc.) linkage, non–additive gene effects and environmental
effects. The most frequent reason given for this failure in wheat
include the inability to identify useable genetic variations and a large
environment effect (Rezqui 1993)
In order to overcome these difficulties it is necessary to get as much as
possible information about genetic structure of crosses under going
selection. This mean identifying the gene effects that control the
inheritance of a trait of interest and contributing to the exploitable
genetic variance in the crosses.

5. Contd..
The high heritability associated with high genetic advance for main
quantitative traits in wheat offer better scope of selection of genotypes in early
segregating generations(Memon et al. 2005). The heritability of a character
determines the extent to which it is transmitted from one generations to the
next and it is most valuable tool when used in conjunction with other
parameters in predicting genetic gain that follows in the selection for that
character (Bloch et al. 2003, Ansari et al. 2004, 2005, El-Ameen et al. 2013)
Numerous methods have been proposed but only a few valid comparisons
have been made among alternative procedures .Pedigree methods of selection
are very common selection technique in self–pollinated crops.
This method represents the procedure where an individual plant is selected
successively through generations(f 2 -fn) by monitoring selected offspring till
homozygous lines.
Pedigree method has drawbacks due to high costs of record keeping,
utilization of manpower, genetic drift and loss of desirable genes.
Verma et al.(1997) and El-Ameen et al. (2013) showed that pedigree method
of selection was more effective in improving plant height and yield and its

6. Objective of the present research work was therefore conducted to
study the relative response to selection in two bread wheat crosses for
two cycles started in F2 using pedigree selection procedure for
improving grain yield and its components

7. OBJECTIVE
Estimates the genetic variability and efficiency of selection
for grain yield and its components in two wheat crosses.

8. MATERIALS AND METHODS
 The present experiment was conducted over three seasons
(2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013) at Faculty of
agriculture, Cairo University, Agriculture Experiment and
Research Station, in Giza governorate, Egypt.
In 2010-2011
Genotypes - 300 F2 plants
Experimental design -Randomized Block Design
(RBD)
Replications - 02
Row to raw distance -10cm
Plant to plant distance -30cm
.

9. In 2011-2012
F3 progenies of selected f2 plants for each cross with there
parents were planted.
Replication 2
Rows length 1.30 m
Specing 30 X 10
In 2012-2013
For each cross a sample of 48 families (a family is the
progeny of an individual f2 plant), each represented by two
lines (a line is the progeny of an individual f3 plant)
Replication 3
Single row plot 30 x 10

10. OBSERVATIONS WERE RECORDED
S.NO Observations
1 Plant height
2 Spike length
3 Spikelets per spike
4 No. of kernels per spike
5 No. of spikes per plant
6 Grain yield per plant

11. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Data for each cross was considered a individually in the analysis of
variance . The data were statistically analyzed by MSTST-C V.2.1
(Russell 1994).
Heritability in broad sense(H)
Broad sense heritability was estimated using the components of variation
according to the formulae outlined by Weber and Moorthy (1952) .
Actual and predicted gains
In a cycle 1 the predicted gains of F3 progenies were derived from
selected F2 lines were obtained by multiplying the differential between
the F2 parental sample mean by the heritability percentage. The actual
gain represented by differential between the progeny of the selected
parents and F2 cross mean.
In cycle 2 the predicted gains of F4 progenies derived from selected F3
lines were obtained by multiplying differential between the F3 cross and
parental sample means by the heritability percentage. The actual gain
represented by the differential between the progeny of the selected
parents and F4 cross mean.
Phenotypic (PCV%) and Genotypic (GCV%) coefficients of variations
for the studied traits were calculated as described by Burton(1952).

12. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Analysis of variance
Results of analysis of variance for the studied two crosses (L-39 x V92/17)
and (New valley x V92/17)are presented in table.
These results revealed significant(p=0.05)and highly significant
(p=0.01)difference among genotypes (families + parents) and families for all
studies traits across the three generations (F2, F3 & F4), except spikelets per
spike.
Which exhibited no significance difference among families in f3 generations
for cross 1 and 2. These finding indicates that a greater response to selection
can be expected from these crosses.
Mean values
Mean values of F2 plants , F3 and F4 lines selected for yield and its component
are shown in table. The difference between the high and low mean value
relative to high mean value (R%). In the F2 generation ranged from 13.28%
for spikelets per spike in the L-39 x V92/17 cross to 41.80% for grain yield
per plant in the New valley x V92/17 cross to55.81% for grain yield per plant
in the New valley x V92/17 cross.

13. Contd..
 Mean while, in the F4 generations, the differences between the
high and low mean value relative to high mean value (R%)
ranged from 13.62% for spikelets per spike in the L-39 X V92/17
cross to 70.03%for no. of spike per plant in the L-39 X V92/17
cross.
These % were higher for grain yield than for any yield
component in all crosses in the F2 generation and in one of two
crosses in the F3 generations .On the contrary , all of two crosses
were lower for grain yield than for any yield components in the
F4 generations .
The presence of the differences between high and low suggested
that selection would be effective in these crosses .these crosses
.These findings were in harmony with those obtained by
Alexender et al (1984).

14. Pertinent analysis of variance of two crosses across three generations (F2, F3 and F4) for
the studied traits.
Plant Height
Cross 1 Seg. Gen. F2 F3 F4
L-39 Genotypes(g) 61.15 157.01 445.39
X Families(F) 57.86 155.53 431.75
V92/17 Parents(p) 1089.00 441.00 477.56
Cross 2 S.V. F2 F3 F4
New valley Genotypes(g) 26.05 142.17 703.63
X Families(F) 23.97 132.80 599.16
V92/17 Parents(p) 33.64 1089.00 519.91

15. Spike length
Cross 1 S.V. F2 F3 F4
L-39 Genotypes(g) 0.88 0.85 5.83
X Families(F) 0.73 0.85 4.57
V92/17 Parents(p) 0.14 0.01 26.86
Cross 2 S.V. F2 F3 F4
New valley Genotypes(g) 0.46 2.21 6.52
X Families(F) 0.39 2.21 3.09
V92/17 Parents(p) 0.28 0.30 10.37

16. Spikelets spike
Cross 1 S.V. F2 F3 F4
L-39 Genotypes(g) 040 6.79 5.48
X Families(F) 0.35 1.39 1.52
V92/17 Parents(p) 1.44 11.56 11.51
Cross 2 S.V. F2 F3 F4
New valley Genotypes(g) 0.57 4.55 9.57
X Families(F) 0.43 0.90 7.76
V92/17 Parents(p) 0.16 1.44 6.65

17. Kernels per
spike
Cross 1 S.V. F2 F3 F4
L-39 Genotypes(g) 25.86 98.96 5.85
X Families(F) 23.04 88.34 4.39
V92/17 Parents(p) 33.64 14.44 4.22
Cross 2 S.V. F2 F3 F4
New valley Genotypes(g) 33.77 49.84 219.99
X Families(F) 28.07 40.65 168.77
V92/17 Parents(p) 5.76 33.64 312.51

18. No of spikes per
spike
Cross 1 S.V. F2 F3 F4
L-39 Genotypes(g) 12.74 8.39 0.68
X Families(F) 12.74 8.55 0.28
V92/17 Parents(p) 1.56 1.82 1.29
Cross 2 S.V. F2 F3 F4
New valley Genotypes(g) 4.18 4.86 66.6
X Families(F) 4.15 4.57 67.1
V92/17 Parents(p) 1.32 3.06 76.5

19. Grain yield per
plant
Cross 1 S.V. F2 F3 F4
L-39 Genotypes(g) 61.13 72.78 21.79
X Families(F) 50.40 56.76 12.81
V92/17 Parents(p) 2.62 14.73 15.28
Cross 2 S.V. F2 F3 F4
New valley Genotypes(g) 19.89 64.59 22.27
X Families(F) 12.34 49.62 16.22
V92/17 Parents(p) 0.01 0.79 30.94

20. Mean value of two crosses across three generations (F2, F3 and f4) for the
studied traits
L-39
xV92/
17
F2 F3 F4
Traits F2 R% L-
39
V92/
17
F3 R% L-39 V92/
17
F4 R% L-39 V92/1
7
Plant
height
104.0
8
26.0
0
102.
10
90.4
6
84.0 41.15 68.95 91.09 34.22 34.22 105.
45
72.45
Spike
length
11.85 15.0
7
11.5
8
12.8
9
9.49 9.38 9.62 12.01 33.87 33.87 8.24 8.80
Spikel
ets /
spike
17.40 13.2
8
19.3
4
16.1
5
19.14 14.60 13.99 20.08 13.62 13.62 18.7
5
17.55
Kernal
s/
spike
46.29 17.9
9
55.2
9
40.1
5
64.36 52.18 37.49 63.03 34.81 34.81 51.1
0
45.30
No of
spikes/
plant
11.50 25.0
1
11.7
9
11.1
3
17.63 16.55 17.90 17.80 70.03 70.03 15.0
5
15.45

21. New
valley
xV92/1
7
F2 F3 F4
Traits F2 R% NV V92
/17
F3 R% NV V92/
17
F4 R% NV V92/
17
Plant
height
101.
79
30.9
1
104.
84
90.4
6
86.21 40.98 108.8
2
68.95 90.83 32.73 92.45 72.45
Spike
length
11.6
5
19.1
1
11.6
5
12.8
9
9.50 53.69 8.72 9.62 11.45 30.42 9.34 8.80
Spikele
ts /
spike
18.4
2
17.5
6
19.5
5
16.1
5
19.26 19.66 14.10 13.99 21.00 20.30 17.95 17.55
Kernals
/ spike
49.7
9
19.8
0
55.9
8
40.1
5
63.39 39.77 48.47 37.49 65.37 47.98 42.19 45.30
No of
spikes/
plant
11.4
6
34.4
9
11.7
6
11.1
3
14.16 47.52 15.45 17.90 16.09 57.91 12.65 15.45
Grain 16.1 41.8 18.3 10.1 40.98 55.81 19.72 18.18 44.80 36.54 19.26 21.86
New
valley
xV92/1
7
F2 F3 F4
Traits F2 R% NV V92
/17
F3 R% NV V92/
17
F4 R% NV V92/
17
Plant
height
101.
79
30.9
1
104.
84
90.4
6
86.21 40.98 108.8
2
68.95 90.83 32.73 92.45 72.45
Spike
length
11.6
5
19.1
1
11.6
5
12.8
9
9.50 53.69 8.72 9.62 11.45 30.42 9.34 8.80
Spikele
ts /
spike
18.4
2
17.5
6
19.5
5
16.1
5
19.26 19.66 14.10 13.99 21.00 20.30 17.95 17.55
Kernals
/ spike
49.7
9
19.8
0
55.9
8
40.1
5
63.39 39.77 48.47 37.49 65.37 47.98 42.19 45.30
No of
spikes/
plant
11.4
6
34.4
9
11.7
6
11.1
3
14.16 47.52 15.45 17.90 16.09 57.91 12.65 15.45
Grain 16.1 41.8 18.3 10.1 40.98 55.81 19.72 18.18 44.80 36.54 19.26 21.86

22. Variability
Variance is considered one of the most important factors for efficiency
of selection and breeding methods. Data of phenotypic variance ,
genotypic variance ,phenotypic coefficient of variation (PCV%),
genotypic coefficient of variations (GCV%) and broad sense
heritability are presented in table.
Results of plant height showed difference values of phenotypic,
genotypic variance and variability of (PCV% & GCV%) according to
crosses and generations. The small difference between PCV% and
GCV%, confirming the importance of genetic components of
variability controlling plant height rather then the environmental
effects.
Broad sense heritability estimates for plant height were (52.41, 94.96
and 83.54) and (63.29, 96.98 and 88.86) for F2, F3 and F4 in the cross 1
and 2 respectively. These results indicate that plant height was less
affected by environmental factors.

23. Contd..
Results of variances and variability for spike length and spikelets /spike show that
less values were detected according to crosses and generations.
Estimates of broad sense heritability for spike length varied from low percentage
37.07% in cross 1 and 2 for F2 generation to high percentage in F4 generation through
the two crosses.
Estimates of broad sense heritability for number of spikes /plant varied from
intermediate in F2 and F3 generations to high in F4 generation across the two crosses .
These results indicate that number of kernels /spike and number of spikes /plant
were less affected by environmental factors and are controlled mainly by genetic
system.
Results of grain yield /plant revealed that the magnitude of phenotypic and genotypic
variances were high variability. The variability of PCV% and GCV% has low
percentages indicating decrease of variability. These results suggested that the
directional selection appears to reduce the range and variability for grain yield /plant
in the F4.
Difference between phenotypic, genotypic variances were low indicate that grain
yield /plant were less affected by environmental factors and this is clearing in the
high values of broad sense heritability for the two crosses especially in F4 generation.

25. For plant height the selection parental sample in the F2 of cross 1 was
1.93% higher than the cross mean, and was almost identical 1.89%
with mean plant height of their progenies of the F3. However , the trend
of the predicted (7.28%) was higher than the actual gains (4.90%)in
cycle 2 from F3 and F4 generation. Meanwhile , for plant height in cross
2 they behavior were identical with cross 1. These results of close
agreement between the expected and actual gains suggest that the gene
action involved in cycle 1 and 2 is largely additive.
 For spike length, spikelets / spike , kernels /spike and No. of spikes
/plant the actual gain as percentage of cross mean was higher than the
predicted one , through cycle 1 and 2 for the two crosses. These results
confirming the predominance of dominance gene effects.
 For grain yield /plant the actual gain as percentage of cross mean was
higher than the predicted one, through cycle 1 and 2 for the two
crosses. These results of highest values of actual than predicted
indicate that dominance gene effects are involved in the inheritance of
that trait.
Response to selection

27. CONCLUSION
From the results obtained in this work, it can
be concluded that pedigree selection method
was effective in improving the grain yield and
its components . Also selection was effective to
produce new lines with higher grain yield .

28. REFERENCES

30. THANK YOU