Nội dung

Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2018) 7(2): 106-119 International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences ISSN: 2319-7706 Volume 7 Number 02 (2018) Journal homepage: http://www.ijcmas.com Original Research Article https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2018.702.014 Effect of Cytoplasm on Seed Yield and Attributing Traits in Sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) N.C. Sunitha* and Y.G. Shadakshari University of Agricultural Sciences, Bengaluru- 560065, India *Corresponding author ABSTRACT Keywords Isonuclear alloplasmic, Cytoplasm, CMS A line, Maintainer line, Combining ability, per se performance Article Info Accepted: 04 January 2018 Available Online: 10 February 2018 The effect of cytoplasm on hybrid mean performance for seed yield and its contributing traits was investigated by evaluating 50 hybrids (25 A×R and their corresponding 25 B×R hybrids) and 10 parents (five CMS A lines and corresponding maintainer lines) along with standard check hybrid DRSH-1. These isonuclear alloplasmic hybrids were observed for quantitative traits viz., days to 50 per cent flowering, head diameter, stem diameter, plant height, 100 seed weight, volume weight, days to maturity, hull content, seed yield plant 1 and oil content. Significant variation was observed within the A×R and B×R group of hybrids for all the traits. But, differences between A×R and B×R group of hybrids were not significant for any trait except for hull content and oil content indicating poor influence of male sterility inducing cytoplasm. However, significant differences observed in few A×R and B×R hybrids for mean performance might be attributed to cytoplasm × nuclear interactions. The differences varied in their direction and magnitude without showing a definite pattern in favour of a particular cytoplasm. However, the differences so detected varied with the trait and nuclear genetic background. Introduction Cytoplasmic genes of plants including mitochondrial and chloroplast genes of plants are known to play a vital role in various metabolic processes. Apart from male sterility, cytoplasmic genes show influence on agronomic traits as reported in rice (Young and Virmani, 1990; Rosamma and Vijayakumar, 2007), chilli (Neelavva, 2012; Haritha, 2011), sorghum (Aruna et al., 2013; Sanjana et al., 2011; Reddy et al., 2009) and pearl millet (Chandrashekar et al., 2007; Yadav, 1999). Further, influence of cytoplasm on response to insects and diseases has been reported in pearl millet (Kumar, R. et al., 2010; Reddy et al., 2007). In commercial sunflower hybrid seed production, cytoplasmic male sterile (A) lines, sterility maintainer (B) lines and fertility restorer (R) lines are used. Elite Maintainer (B) lines which maintain sterility are backcrossed to sterile cytoplasm source for sufficient generations to obtain CMS A lines. Hence, CMS A lines and CMS B lines share same nuclear genes but differ for their cytoplasmic genes. Further, CMS A lines are maintained by crossing with maintainer lines and are crossed with restorer lines for Hybrid seed production. Since, the CMS B lines are used for the development and further maintenance 106 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2018) 7(2): 106-119 of corresponding CMS A lines in sunflower breeding, the possible influence of cytoplasm on the key traits must be studied. With the objective of determining the effect of cytoplasm on combining ability and yield attributes, we compared A × R hybrids with their corresponding B × R hybrids. Significant difference, if any, between them indicates the influence of cytoplasm on combining ability and yield attributes in sunflower. Studies have been reported in sesame (Mosjidis et al., 1984) and soybean (Davde et al., 1989) for cytoplasmic effects on oleic-linoleic fractions and protein content, respectively. Similar attempts have been made to study cytoplasmic effects in wheat (Liu and Li, 1994), pearl millet (Thakur et al., 1991), rice (Kadoo et al., 2002), sorghum (Ramesh et al., 2006) and chilli (Neelavva, 2012). Cytoplasmic effect on seed yield, oil content and flowering time was reported by Serieys et al., (1992) by comparing reciprocal crosses. However, our present investigation was to determine cytoplasmic effect without evaluating reciprocal crosses but comparing alloplasmic isonuclear hybrids. Materials and Methods The material for the study comprised of five CMS lines viz., CMS 335A, CMS 17A, CMS 234A, CMS 135A and NDCMS 4A and their corresponding maintainer lines and five testers (RHA 6D-1, RHA 95-C-1, GKVK 3, RHA 93 and RHA 23). The five CMS lines (A-lines) were hand-pollinated using pollen collected from the five testers to produce 25 A×R crosses during kharif 2014. The maintainer counterpart of A-lines were induced male sterility by Gibberlic acid at 100 ppm during star bud stage and pollinated using the pollen collected from the same five testers to produce 25 B×R crosses during kharif 2014. A total of 50 hybrids (25 A×R and 25 B×R) were evaluated along with check (DRSH-1) and parents in contiguous blocks in randomized block design with two replications at Zonal Agricultural Research Station, UAS, GKVK, Bengaluru during Rabi 2014. All the recommended agronomic practices were followed to raise a good crop. Five competitive plants were taken randomly in each plot in each replication and observations were recorded on days to 50 per cent flowering, plant height (cm), stem diameter (cm), head diameter (cm), stem diameter (cm), Volume weight (g/100ml), 100 seed weight (g), Seed yield per plant (g), Hull content (%), Oil content (%) and Days to maturity. Replication-wise mean values were computed and used for statistical analysis. Analysis of variance of A × R and B × R hybrids was carried out separately, the error mean sum of squares of individual analyses were pooled after testing their homogeneity (Bartlett, 1937). The pooled error mean sum of squares was used for estimating critical difference (CD) to compare A × R and B × R hybrids in terms of the hybrid mean performance. The combining ability analysis was performed following Kempthorne (1957). Since yield is associated with several other characters, positively with some and negatively with others, it is necessary to know the overall performance status of the parents / hybrids for all the characters simultaneously. The overall status of a parent or a cross with respect to per se performance was determined as per the method of Arunachalam and Bandopadhyay (1979) with slight modification as suggested by Mohan Rao (2001). The estimates of per se performance of hybrids were ranked by giving the highest rank for the parent or the cross which manifested the per se performance in desirable direction. The lowest rank was given for parent or the cross with the per se performance. This was repeated for each character except days to 50 per cent flowering, days to maturity and hull 107 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2018) 7(2): 106-119 content (%) for which the ranking was given in reverse order. The ranks obtained by the parent / hybrid were summed up across all the characters to arrive at a total score for each of the parent / cross. Further, the mean of the total scores of all the genotypes (parents and hybrids) was computed which was used as the final norm to ascertain the status of a parent or a hybrid with respect to per se performance. The parent / hybrid whose total rank exceeded the final norm were given high (H) overall per se performance. On the other hand, the parents or the cross, whose total rank was less than the final norm were given low (L) per se performance. Results and Discussion Both A × R and B × R groups of hybrids varied significantly among themselves as evident from the significant mean squares due to A × R and B × R hybrids. This variation so observed within the A × R and B × R hybrids provided statistical basis for comparing the A × R and corresponding B × R hybrids to assess the effect of cytoplasm. However, A × R hybrids as a group differed significantly from B × R hybrids as a group only for hull content and oil content which is indicated by the significant mean squares due to A × R vs. B × R hybrids as shown in table 1. hybrids only for hull content and oil content which is indicated by the significant mean squares due to A × R vs. B × R hybrids, indicating the possibility of presence of cytoplasmic influence. Cytoplasmic effects on per se performance of hybrids The mean performance of the A × R and corresponding B × R hybrids along with the difference between them is depicted in table 3. Days to 50 per cent flowering Days to 50 per cent flowering ranged from 51 days (CMS 234A × RHA 23) to 69 days (CMS335A × GKVK-3) among A × R hybrids and from 52 days (CMS 234B × RHA 93) to 70 days (CMS335B × GKVK-3) in B × R hybrids. A × R and their corresponding B × R hybrids did not differ significantly for days to 50 per cent flowering with respect to their mean performance in any of the 25 nuclear genetic backgrounds. A × R group of hybrids and their corresponding B × R group of hybrids did not show significant difference for days to 50 per cent flowering which is evident from non-significant difference between overall means of A × R and B × R hybrids. Cytoplasmic effects on combining ability Plant height Both A and B lines showed significant variation for all traits except head diameter, stem diameter, seed yield plant-1 and hull content. While A lines varied significantly for head diameter while the B lines varied significantly for stem diameter and seed yield plant-1 (Table 2). Mean squares due to both A lines × testers and B lines × testers were significant for plant height, seed yield plant-1 and hull content. A lines×testers were significant for head diameter, stem diameter and oil content. A × R hybrids as a group differed significantly from the group of B × R Plant height ranged from 146.13 cm (NDCMS4A × RHA 93) to 188 cm (CMS 234A × RHA 95-C-1) among A × R hybrids. Among the B × R hybrids, it ranged from 142.5 cm (NDCMS4B × RHA 93) to 189.5 cm (CMS 335B × RHA 95-C-1). Significant differences between A × R and B × R crosses for per se performance were observed in three nuclear genetic backgrounds, of which two were in favour of male sterile cytoplasm and one was in favour of male fertile cytoplasm. Head diameter 108 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2018) 7(2): 106-119 The variation among A × R hybrids and also B × Rhybrids was narrow for head diameter. Head diameter ranged from 12.25 cm (CMS 17A × RHA 95-C-1) to 17.03 cm (NDCMS4A × GKVK-3) among the A × R hybrids while the range was 13.90 cm (CMS 17B × RHA 93) to 16 cm (CMS 335B × RHA 93) among the B × R hybrids. Three of the 25 nuclear genetic backgrounds registered significant differences between A × R and B × R hybrids for per se performance, of which, two were in favour of male sterile cytoplasm and one was in favour of male fertile cytoplasm. Stem diameter Among the A × R hybrids, stem diameter ranged from 1.97 cm (NDCMS 4A × RHA 23) to 3.10 cm (CMS 17A × GKVK 3) while it ranged from 1.77 cm (NDCMS4B × RHA 93) to 2.8 cm (CMS 17A × RHA 6D-1) among the B × R hybrids. A × R and B × R hybrids differed significantly for per se performance in two nuclear genetic backgrounds which were in favour of male sterile cytoplasm. The A × R group of hybrids and their corresponding B × R group of hybrids did not differ significantly for stem diameter which is evident from non-significant difference between overall means of A × R and B × R hybrids. Volume weight Volume weight ranged from 27 g/100ml (CMS 17A × RHA 95-C-1) to 47.8 g/100ml (CMS 135A × RHA 23) among A × R hybrids. Among B × R hybrids, it ranged from 26.05 g/100ml (CMS 17B × GKVK 3) to 49.03 g/100ml (CMS 234B × RHA 95-C-1). Three of the 25 nuclear genetic backgrounds registered significant differences for per se performance between A × R and B × R hybrids differing in their female cytoplasm, of which, two were in favour of male sterile cytoplasm and one was in favour of male fertile cytoplasm. The A × R hybrids as a group did not show significant differences with their corresponding B × R group of hybrids for volume weight which is evident from nonsignificant difference between overall means of A × R and B × R hybrids. 100 seed weight Among the A × R hybrids, 100 seed weight ranged from 3.33 g (CMS 335A × RHA 95-C1) to 7.24 g (NDCMS 4A × RHA 93) while it ranged from 3.23 g (335B × RHA 95-C-1) to 6.09 g (NDCMS 4B × RHA 23) among B × R hybrids. The per se performance of A × R and B × R hybrids were comparable and they differed only in three nuclear genetic backgrounds viz., CMS 335A/CMS335B × GKVK-3, CMS 17A/CMS 17B × RHA 95-C1 and NDCMS4A/NDCMS4B × RHA 95-C-1 for 100 seed weight. The male sterile cytoplasm based hybrids, CMS 17A × RHA 95-C-1, NDCMS4A × RHA 95-C-1 and a fertile cytoplasm based hybrid CMS335B × RHA 23 manifested high 100 seed weight. The A × R group of hybrids and their corresponding B × R group of hybrids were comparable for 100 seed weight which is evident from non-significant difference between overall means of A × R and B × R hybrids. Seed yield plant-1 Among the A × R hybrids, seed yield plant-1 ranged from 39.9 g (NDCMS 4A × RHA 23) to 75.2 g (CMS 135A × RHA 95-C-1) while it ranged from 28.5 g (NDCMS 4A × RHA 6D1) to 72.7 g (CMS 135B × GKVK-3) among B × R hybrids. 109 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2018) 7(2): 106-119 Table.1 Combined analysis of variance of iso-nuclear alloplasmic hybrids for seed yield and its contributing traits in sunflower Source of variation df Days to 50% flowering Mean sum of squares Head Stem diameter diameter (cm) (cm) 0.12 0.02 1.082** 0.103** Replication Hybrids 1 49 1.96 66.00** Plant height (cm) 87.98 347.75** Volume weight (g/100ml) A×R 24 73.19** 329.81** 1.69** 0.114** 99.14** B×R 24 61.55** 376.92** 0.48 0.10** 90.95** A×R vs. B×R Error 1 49 0.04 5.82 78.32 28.21 0.81 0.47 0.01 0.03 12.41 11.69 22.08 93.36** *Significant at P= 0.05, ** Significant at P= 0.01, A: male sterile line, B: maintainer line, R: restorer line Contd… Source of variation df Replication 1 100 seed weight (g) 0.89 Seed yield plant-1 (g) 0.12 Hybrids 49 1.56** A×R 24 B×R Mean sum of squares Days to maturity 0.09 Hull content (%) 5.26 Oil content (%) 0.85 233.57** 9.81** 32.83** 5.66** 1.88** 239.27** 11.50** 23.74** 6.36** 24 1.26** 237.55** 8.43** 43.05** 4.69** A×R vs. B×R 1 1.16 1.06 2.25 5.82** 12.39** Error 49 0.55 21.76 1.27 3.37 1.28 *Significant at P= 0.05, ** Significant at P= 0.01 A: male sterile line, B: maintainer line, R: restorer line 110 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2018) 7(2): 106-119 Table.2 Analysis of variance for combining ability of alloplasmic hybrids and their parents for seed yield and its Contributing traits in sunflower Source of variation df Days to 50% flowering Replication Hybrids Lines Testers Lines × Testers Error 1 24 4 4 16 A×R 0.72 73.19** 308.27** 103.07** 6.95 B×R 1.28 61.55** 259.07** 92.72** 4.38 24 3.59 8.28 Mean sum of squares Plant height Head (cm) diameter (cm) A×R B×R A×R B×R 70.09 23.94 0.003 0.19 329.80** 376.92** 1.69** 0.48 710.00** 686.10** 1.68* 0.72 908.19** 1022.64** 0.61 0.29 90.16** 138.20** 1.96** 0.47 19.74 37.59 0.39 0.56 Stem diameter (cm) Volume weight (g/100ml) A×R 0.02 0.11* 0.11 0.10 0.12* B×R 0.001 0.09** 0.28** 0.14* 0.04 A×R 19.82 96.26** 438.39** 54.24 21.23 B×R 3.19 90.95** 386.02** 57.03 25.66 0.04 0.02 10.57 13.98 *Significant at P= 0.05, ** Significant at P= 0.01 Contd… Source of variation Df Mean sum of squares 100 seed weight (g) A×R B×R 1.11 0.07 Seed yield plant-1 (g) A×R B×R 0.387 1.15 Days to maturity A×R 0.08 B×R 0.50 Hull content (%) A×R B×R 42.55 5.38 Oil content (%) A×R B×R 1.94 0.008 Replication 1 Hybrids 24 1.88** 1.25 239.08** 237.55** 11.50** 8.44** 148.02** 287.45** 6.36** 4.69* Lines 4 8.90** 3.11** 332.04 544.20* 52.92** 38.57** 235.91 395.71 17.47** 14.89** Testers 4 0.10 2.90** 453.34 256.26 9.77** 5.27* 247.92 523.03 8.55 6.78* Lines × Testers Error 16 0.57 0.38 162.27** 156.22** 1.58 1.69 101.07** 201.50** 3.03** 1.62 24 0.46 0.63 17.31 27.01 0.99 1.58 26.64 21.90 0.73 1.85 *Significant at P= 0.05, ** Significant at P= 0.01 111 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2018) 7(2): 106-119 Table.3 Comparison of per se performance of A×R and B×R sunflower hybrids for seed yield and its attributing traits Nuclear genetic background CMS 335A/CMS335B × RHA 6D-1 CMS 335A/CMS335B× RHA 95-C-1 CMS 335A/CMS335B× GKVK-3 CMS 335A/CMS335B× RHA 93 CMS 335A/CMS335B× RHA 23 CMS 17A/CMS 17B× RHA 6D-1 CMS 17A/CMS 17B× RHA 95-C-1 CMS 17A/CMS 17B× GKVK-3 CMS 17A/CMS 17B× RHA 93 CMS 17A/CMS 17B× RHA 23 CMS 234A/CMS 234B × RHA 6D-1 CMS 234A/CMS 234B× RHA 95-C-1 CMS 234A/CMS 234B× GKVK-3 CMS 234A/CMS 234B× RHA 93 CMS 234A/CMS 234B× RHA 23 CMS 135A/CMS 135B× RHA 6D-1 CMS 135A/CMS 135B× RHA 95-C-1 CMS 135A/CMS 135B× GKVK-3 CMS 135A/CMS 135B× RHA 93 CMS 135A/CMS 135B× RHA 23 NDCMS4A/NDCMS4B× RHA 6D-1 NDCMS4A/NDCMS4B× RHA 95-C-1 NDCMS4A/NDCMS4B× GKVK-3 NDCMS4A/NDCMS4B× RHA 93 NDCMS4A/NDCMS4B× RHA 23 Overall mean Sem. ± CD @ P=0.05* CD @ P=0.01** Days to 50% flowering A×R B×R Diff. 69.0 68.5 0.50 68.0 69.0 -1.00 69.5 70.5 -1.00 64.5 65.5 -1.00 65.0 66.5 -1.50 63.0 63.0 0.00 68.5 64.0 4.50 65.0 66.0 -1.00 55.0 57.0 -2.00 59.0 58.5 0.50 53.0 54.0 -1.00 56.5 58.0 -1.50 59.0 60.5 -1.50 52.5 52.5 0.00 51.0 53.5 -2.50 55.5 58.0 -2.50 58.0 59.0 -1.00 60.5 61.0 -0.50 52.5 56.0 -3.50 52.0 53.0 -1.00 54.5 56.0 -1.50 55.5 55.5 0.00 60.0 63.5 -3.50 52.0 53.5 -1.50 54.0 54.5 -0.50 58.9 59.8 -0.90 1.39 1.98 1.72 4.02 5.71 4.94 5.39 7.67 6.63 Plant height (cm) A×R B×R Diff. 176.50 168.40 8.10 187.00 189.50 -2.50 187.00 180.30 6.70 173.10 171.10 2.00 170.54 182.50 -11.96* 174.38 171.50 2.88 172.50 176.20 -3.70 186.80 180.80 6.00 154.75 159.80 -5.05 169.25 160.80 8.45 170.00 154.50 15.50* 188.00 182.50 5.50 185.50 181.30 4.20 163.00 155.30 7.70 156.50 158.50 -2.00 152.50 158.40 -5.90 177.00 174.00 3.00 162.00 173.50 -11.50 146.50 146.10 0.40 154.10 157.60 -3.50 164.00 164.00 0.00 163.00 150.00 13.00* 173.25 180.00 -6.75 146.13 142.50 3.63 151.50 149.50 2.00 168.19 166.74 1.45 3.82 5.09 4.50 11 14.63 11.94 14.77 19.65 17.38 A: male sterile line, B: maintainer line, R: restorer line, *Significant at P= 0.05, ** Significant at P= 0.01 112 Stem diameter (cm) A×R B×R Diff. 2.67 2.54 0.13 2.47 2.57 -0.10 2.21 2.56 -0.35* 2.61 2.46 0.15 2.58 2.62 -0.04 2.51 2.80 -0.29 2.00 2.72 -0.72 3.10 2.50 0.60 2.47 2.50 -0.03 2.67 2.50 0.17 2.50 2.29 0.21 2.47 2.42 0.05 2.46 2.56 -0.10 2.22 2.16 0.06 2.23 2.15 0.08 2.20 2.23 -0.03 2.28 2.41 -0.13 2.44 2.51 -0.07 2.26 2.21 0.05 2.26 2.46 -0.20 2.46 2.33 0.13 2.47 2.28 0.19 2.69 2.49 0.20 2.33 1.77 0.5** 1.97 2.11 -0.14 2.42 2.41 0.01 0.13 0.09 0.11 0.39 0.27 0.33 0.52 0.37 0.45 Head diameter (cm) A×R B×R Diff. 15.90 15.30 0.60 15.40 15.40 0.00 14.50 15.20 -0.70 16.10 16.00 0.10 15.50 15.10 0.40 15.50 15.40 0.10 12.25 15.10 -2.85** 16.50 14.90 1.60* 14.60 13.90 0.70 15.83 15.20 0.63 15.10 15.30 -0.20 16.20 15.50 0.70 14.90 15.90 -1.00 14.50 15.30 -0.80 14.90 14.90 0.00 14.90 14.50 0.40 15.70 15.80 -0.10 15.20 15.10 0.10 15.10 15.00 0.10 14.80 15.80 -1.00 16.43 14.97 1.47 15.80 14.70 1.10 17.03 15.00 2.03* 15.63 14.20 1.43 15.00 15.30 -0.30 15.33 15.15 0.18 0.51 0.57 0.543 1.46 1.65 1.56 1.96 2.22 2.09 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2018) 7(2): 106-119 Contd… Nuclear genetic background CMS 335A/CMS335B × RHA 6D-1 CMS 335A/CMS335B× RHA 95-C-1 CMS 335A/CMS335B× GKVK-3 CMS 335A/CMS335B× RHA 93 CMS 335A/CMS335B× RHA 23 CMS 17A/CMS 17B× RHA 6D-1 CMS 17A/CMS 17B× RHA 95-C-1 CMS 17A/CMS 17B× GKVK-3 CMS 17A/CMS 17B× RHA 93 CMS 17A/CMS 17B× RHA 23 CMS 234A/CMS 234B × RHA 6D-1 CMS 234A/CMS 234B× RHA 95-C-1 CMS 234A/CMS 234B× GKVK-3 CMS 234A/CMS 234B× RHA 93 CMS 234A/CMS 234B× RHA 23 CMS 135A/CMS 135B× RHA 6D-1 CMS 135A/CMS 135B× RHA 95-C-1 CMS 135A/CMS 135B× GKVK-3 CMS 135A/CMS 135B× RHA 93 CMS 135A/CMS 135B× RHA 23 NDCMS4A/NDCMS4B× RHA 6D-1 NDCMS4A/NDCMS4B× RHA 95-C-1 NDCMS4A/NDCMS4B× GKVK-3 NDCMS4A/NDCMS4B× RHA 93 NDCMS4A/NDCMS4B× RHA 23 Overall mean Sem. ± CD @ P=0.05* CD @ P=0.01** Volume weight (g/100ml) A×R B×R Diff. 28.67 31.90 28.81 27.06 27.90 36.57 27.00 36.00 47.18 40.48 45.31 41.79 43.34 44.04 44.53 44.62 40.74 44.28 44.51 47.80 45.69 45.40 40.30 45.45 44.24 39.74 2.22 6.39 8.58 27.40 39.20 32.15 29.76 26.05 41.49 33.99 39.44 46.42 41.72 42.66 49.03 40.02 45.36 45.24 39.21 43.24 45.73 42.25 46.34 35.68 30.46 35.38 43.52 44.34 39.04 2.74 7.88 10.58 1.27 -7.30 -3.34 -2.70 1.85 -4.92 -6.99 -3.44 0.77 -1.25 2.65 -7.24* 3.32 -1.33 -0.72 5.41 -2.50 -1.45 2.26 1.46 10.1** 14.9** 4.92 1.93 -0.10 0.70 2.49 7.17 9.63 100 seed weight (g) A×R 4.11 4.81 3.51 3.33 4.90 4.47 5.36 5.00 4.14 4.92 5.38 4.51 4.48 4.55 5.15 4.90 5.29 4.93 5.26 5.72 6.12 6.66 6.53 7.24 6.75 5.12 0.49 1.41 1.89 B×R 5.05 4.58 5.67 3.23 4.38 4.11 3.29 4.05 4.08 5.15 5.29 5.26 5.42 4.38 6.00 5.09 4.73 4.91 4.84 5.40 5.41 4.30 6.07 5.83 6.09 4.90 0.51 1.46 1.96 A: male sterile line, B: maintainer line, R: restorer line, *Significant at P= 0.05, ** Significant at P= 0.01 113 Hull content (%) Diff. A×R B×R Diff. -0.94 0.23 -2.16** 0.10 0.52 0.36 2.07** 0.96 0.07 -0.23 0.09 -0.76 -0.94 0.17 -0.85 -0.20 0.57 0.02 0.42 0.32 0.71 2.37** 0.46 1.41 0.65 0.22 0.50 1.43 1.93 31.30 28.32 32.44 34.99 33.98 33.27 35.95 38.88 34.82 41.35 30.92 36.81 28.69 35.32 32.32 30.25 41.42 33.86 33.44 35.30 33.09 34.50 31.87 32.06 35.13 34.98 1.29 3.70 4.96 32.69 32.12 35.72 31.77 32.51 33.51 44.53 43.39 36.58 35.58 28.68 42.62 33.47 33.19 28.01 43.50 39.20 33.28 32.29 34.97 37.12 34.99 30.55 31.61 32.64 35.46 1.25 3.60 4.83 1.39 -3.80* -3.28 3.22 1.47 -0.24 -8.58** -4.51* -1.77 5.77** 2.24 -5.81** -4.78* 2.13 4.31* -13.2** 2.22 0.58 1.15 0.32 -4.04* -0.49 1.32 0.45 2.49 -0.48 1.27 3.65 4.90 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2018) 7(2): 106-119 Contd… Nuclear genetic background CMS 335A/CMS335B × RHA 6D-1 CMS 335A/CMS335B× RHA 95-C-1 CMS 335A/CMS335B× GKVK-3 CMS 335A/CMS335B× RHA 93 CMS 335A/CMS335B× RHA 23 CMS 17A/CMS 17B× RHA 6D-1 CMS 17A/CMS 17B× RHA 95-C-1 CMS 17A/CMS 17B× GKVK-3 CMS 17A/CMS 17B× RHA 93 CMS 17A/CMS 17B× RHA 23 CMS 234A/CMS 234B × RHA 6D-1 CMS 234A/CMS 234B× RHA 95-C-1 CMS 234A/CMS 234B× GKVK-3 CMS 234A/CMS 234B× RHA 93 CMS 234A/CMS 234B× RHA 23 CMS 135A/CMS 135B× RHA 6D-1 CMS 135A/CMS 135B× RHA 95-C-1 CMS 135A/CMS 135B× GKVK-3 CMS 135A/CMS 135B× RHA 93 CMS 135A/CMS 135B× RHA 23 NDCMS4A/NDCMS4B× RHA 6D-1 NDCMS4A/NDCMS4B× RHA 95-C-1 NDCMS4A/NDCMS4B× GKVK-3 NDCMS4A/NDCMS4B× RHA 93 NDCMS4A/NDCMS4B× RHA 23 Overall mean Sem. ± CD @ P=0.05* CD @ P=0.01** Days to maturity A×R B×R Diff. 97.50 96.00 1.50 97.00 97.00 0.00 97.00 98.50 -1.50 96.50 93.50 3.00** 97.50 97.00 0.50 92.00 91.00 1.00 92.50 92.00 0.50 96.50 93.50 3.00** 94.00 93.00 1.00 93.50 93.00 0.50 91.50 92.00 -0.50 92.00 92.50 -0.50 94.00 94.00 0.00 90.50 92.50 -2.00 91.50 92.00 -0.50 92.00 90.50 1.50 93.00 92.50 0.50 94.00 92.50 1.50 91.50 92.50 -1.00 91.00 91.50 -0.50 91.00 91.50 -0.50 91.00 91.50 -0.50 93.50 92.00 1.50 90.00 91.00 -1.00 91.50 91.50 0.00 93.28 92.98 0.30 0.71 0.83 0.78 2.05 2.40 2.23 2.75 3.22 2.99 Seed yield per plant (g) A×R B×R Diff. 45.20 48.30 -3.10 48.60 57.20 -8.60 48.30 46.40 1.90 43.80 45.00 -1.20 47.50 51.40 -3.90 47.50 59.30 -11.80* 46.00 39.80 6.20 71.00 65.20 5.80 70.30 69.70 0.60 42.40 55.10 -12.70** 55.90 44.50 11.40* 62.90 63.10 -0.20 64.20 72.70 -8.50 60.40 53.90 6.50 47.80 47.40 0.40 45.15 49.60 -4.45 75.20 70.00 5.20 64.00 51.60 12.40** 42.70 53.30 -10.60* 40.50 55.00 -14.50** 42.20 28.50 13.70** 41.90 40.70 1.20 59.90 54.00 5.90 40.00 38.10 1.90 39.90 38.60 1.30 51.73 51.94 -0.21 2.97 3.15 3.06 8.52 9.06 8.80 11.44 12.17 11.81 A: male sterile line, B: maintainer line, R: restorer line, *Significant at P= 0.05, ** Significant at P= 0.01 114 Oil content (%) A×R B×R Diff. 36.79 36.37 0.42 34.30 36.79 -2.49* 35.89 38.39 -2.50* 33.15 36.45 -3.30** 36.51 36.21 0.31 35.56 33.81 1.76 34.13 33.72 0.41 33.47 36.54 -3.07** 35.84 35.30 0.55 33.59 33.63 -0.04 38.94 38.29 0.66 38.13 37.92 0.20 36.30 36.61 -0.31 37.98 38.57 -0.59 34.78 36.59 -1.81 38.15 37.73 0.42 38.17 38.24 -0.06 36.59 38.01 -1.43 38.73 37.55 1.19 35.66 36.23 -0.57 37.69 36.38 1.32 35.14 36.54 -1.40 34.42 39.13 -4.71 33.87 36.46 -2.60* 34.59 34.53 0.06 35.93 36.64 -0.71 0.56 0.82 0.70 1.60 2.36 2.01 2.15 3.16 2.70 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2018) 7(2): 106-119 Table.4 Overall status of hybrids across traits for per se performance Nuclear genetic background CMS 335A/CMS335B × RHA 6D-1 CMS 335A/CMS335B× RHA 95-C-1 CMS 335A/CMS335B× GKVK-3 CMS 335A/CMS335B× RHA 93 CMS 335A/CMS335B× RHA 23 CMS 17A/CMS 17B× RHA 6D-1 CMS 17A/CMS 17B× RHA 95-C-1 CMS 17A/CMS 17B× GKVK-3 CMS 17A/CMS 17B× RHA 93 CMS 17A/CMS 17B× RHA 23 CMS 234A/CMS 234B × RHA 6D-1 CMS 234A/CMS 234B× RHA 95-C-1 CMS 234A/CMS 234B× GKVK-3 CMS 234A/CMS 234B× RHA 93 CMS 234A/CMS 234B× RHA 23 CMS 135A/CMS 135B× RHA 6D-1 CMS 135A/CMS 135B× RHA 95-C-1 CMS 135A/CMS 135B× GKVK-3 CMS 135A/CMS 135B× RHA 93 CMS 135A/CMS 135B× RHA 23 NDCMS4A/NDCMS4B× RHA 6D-1 NDCMS4A/NDCMS4B× RHA 95-C-1 NDCMS4A/NDCMS4B× GKVK-3 NDCMS4A/NDCMS4B× RHA 93 NDCMS4A/NDCMS4B× RHA 23 Overall mean Sem. ± CD @ P=0.05* CD @ P=0.01** Rank A×R 147 177 156 132 140 141 157 83 119 152 114 87 125 130 158 166 73 113 249 160 134 133 110 177 164 147 177 156 132 B×R 156 156 125 133 145 110 163 100 119 128 170 73 77 143 163 143 81 117 155 123 167 195 110 199 179 156 156 125 133 Overall per se performance A×R B×R H H H H H L L L L H L L H H L L L L H L L H L L L L L H H H H H L L L L H H H L L H L H L L H H H H H H H H H L L L Final norm= 143. L- Low overall specific hybrid combination, H-high overall specific hybrid combination, A: male sterile line, B: maintainer line, R: restorer line Significant differences in per se performance for seed yield plant-1 were observed between A × R and B × R hybrids in seven nuclear genetic backgrounds, of which, three viz., CMS 234A/CMS 234B × RHA 6D-1, CMS 135A/CMS 135B × GKVK-3 and NDCMS 4A/NDCMS 4B × RHA 6D-1 were in favour of male sterile cytoplasm and four viz., CMS 17A/CMS 17B × RHA 6D-1, CMS 17A/CMS 17B × RHA 23, CMS 135A/CMS 135B × RHA 93 and CMS 135A/CMS 135B × RHA 23 were in favour of male fertile cytoplasm. The A × R group of hybrids and their corresponding B × R group of hybrids did not show significant differences for seed yield plant-1 which is evident from non-significant 115