STABILITY OF BRINcJAL HYBRIDS AGAINST FRUIT BORER

Indian J. Agric. Res., 43 (2) : 88-94, 2009 AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATION CENTRE www.arccjournals.com/indianjournals.com STABILITY OF BRINcJAL HYBRIDS AGAINST FRUIT BORER M.A. Vaddoria, K.L. Dobariya, V.J. Bhatia and D.R. Mehta Department of Agricultural Botany, College of Agriculture, JunagadhAgricultural University, Junagadh-362001, Gujarat, India ABSTRACT Forty eight bonjal hybrids were evaluated along with their sixteen parents and a check variety (GBH 1) for fruit borer infestation and fruit yield per plant during three consecutive seasons (environments) viz., kharif-2003 (E 1 ), rabi-summer-2003 (~) and Summer-2004 (E 3 ). The stability analysis indicated that significant G x E interactions for both the attributes revealed th~t the genotypes had linear response to environmental change, while significant pooled deviation suggested that deviation from linear regression also contributed substantially towards the differences in the stability of genotypes. Further, linear and non-linear components contributed significantly to the differences in stability among the genotypes tested. From the point of view of yield and resistance to fruit borer infestation, six hybrids viz., JBSR 98-2 x Pant Rituraj, ABL 98 1 x Pant Rituraj, ABL 98-1 x GBL 1, Morvi 4-2 x GBL 1 Morvi 4-2 x PLR 1 and Green Round x GBL 1 were identified as most widely adapted hybrids on the basis of stability parameters viz., overall mean no, regression coefficient (bi) and least deviation from regression (S2di). Thus, these hybrids could be used either for resistance breeding or be exploited for commercial exploitation of hybrid vigour in brinjal. Key words : Brinjal hybrid, Fruit borer. INTRODUCTION The brinjal (Solanum melongena l) is one of the important indigenous vegetables grown all over India. This crop is attacked by more than 70 pests of which fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonajis Guenee) causes maximum damage to the fruit throughout the country (Srinivasan and Sunder Babu, 1998) and thetotal loss due to this has been estimated upto 70percent (Krishnaiah and Vijay, 1975). Due to lack of resistant varietieslhybrids, the farmers depend mostly on chemicals like carboryl, quinalphos, endosulfan andsynthetic pyrethroids (Rai et ai., 2001) to control this serious pest. But development of resistant varieties/hybrids to this pest is an economical and long last way to limit the threat (Behera et al., 1999). Hence, the present investigation was initiated to isolate brinjal hybrids against least incidence of fruit borer as well as to see their variable infestation in varying environments (seasons). MATERIAL AND METHODS The experimentalmaterial comprised of 48 hybrids generated from 12 homozygous lines namely, JBCl 01-1, ABCl 0014, Morvi 4-2, ABR 99-32, JBSR 98-2, DBl 21, Sel. 4, KS 331, AEil 98-1, BS 55, Green long (Gl) and Green Round (GR) and four testers namely PlH 1, GBl 1, Pant Rituraj (PR) and.,

Vol. 43, No.2, 2009 89 Punjab Barsati (PB) by adopting line x tester environments affecting the performance of the mating design. qenotypes. The significflnt mean square due The 16 parents and 48 hybrids and to genotype x environment (G x E) interaction a check variety GBH 1 were evaluated indicated that the genotypes interacted for fruit borer infestation and fruit yield considerably with the environments for per plant.in randomized block design with expressing ofboththe charactersandvariable three replications at the Instructional response of genotypes to changing Farm, Junagadh Agricultural University, environments. This result is in consonant Junagadh during three consecutive with Sidhu (1989), Mishra et ai. (1998), seasons (environments) viz., kharif -2003 Mohanty and Prusti (2000) and Krishna (E ), l ra.bi summer-2003-2004 (E 2 ) and Prasad et ai. (2002). summer -2004 (E 3 ) Partitioning of environment + genotype Each genotype was grown in a single x environment (E + G x E) mean square row plot having 10 plants in each row at a showed that environments (linear) differed spacing of 75 x 60 cm. Recommended cultural significantly and were quite diverse in their practices were followed to raise good crop in effects on the performance of the genotypes. a given crop season. Data were recorded for Higher magnitude of mean square due to fruit borer infestation (%) and yield per plant environment (linear) compared with the G x (g) on five randomly selected competitive E (linear) indicated that the linear response of plants. The data were analyzed on the basis the environment accounted for the major part of mean performance over all the of the total variation for both the characters environments as per the stability model which further substantiated that the suggested by Eberhart and Russell (1966). environmental effects and their major influence RESULTS AND DISCUSSION on yield in brinjal were quite real in nature. Pooled analysis of variance (Table 1) Significant mean squares due to pooled revealed the presence of wide genetic deviation for both the characterssuggestedthat variability among the genotypes for both the the deviation from linear regression contributed characters. Significant mean square estimate substantially towards the differences in stability due to environments (seasons) indicated of genotypes. This suggested that predictable substantial difference between the testing as well as unpredictable components were Table 1. Analysis of variance for stability for Fruit borer infestation (%) and Fruit yield per plant (g) in brinjal Source Genotypes (G) Environments (E) GxE E + (G x E) Environments (Un.) GxE(Unear) Pooled Deviation Pooled Error dj. Fruit borer infestation (%) 64 6.70*+ 2 93.75*+ 128 2.26* 130 3.67*+ 1 187.50*+ 64 2.21* 65 2.28* 384. 0.16 Fruit yield per plant (g), 99822.89* + 2034513.00*+ 25744.32* 56648.45*+ 4069026.00*+ 20377.62* 30632.38* 4579.52 *Significant against pooled error at 5 % level, + Significant against pooled deviation at 5 % level

90 INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH involved in the differential response of stability. (X = 1270.6), ABL 98-1 x GBL 1 (X = The genotype x environment interaction 1268.8), Morvi 4-2 x GBL 1 (X = 1202.3), (linear) was found to be non-significant when Sel. 4 x PantRituraj (X = 1114.6), Morvi 4-2 tested against pooled deviation, suggesting the x PLR 1 (X = 1032.2) and Green Round x preponderance of non-linear component as PLR 1 (X = 1241.7) were higher fruit yielder compared to linear one for both the characters. with average responsiveness (bi::: 1 ) and Similar results were reported by Mohanty and adaptability to different environments as they Prusti (2000) and Rai et aj. (2001). depicted higher mean, regression coefficient A perusal of Table 2 indicated that around unity and non-significant deviation among the parents, PLR 1 was identified as from regression. On the other hand, seven below average responsive as it possessed least hybrids viz., ABCL 0014 x PLR 1 (X = fruit borer infestation (X ==13.91) with bi>l 1063.1), ABR 99-32 x Pant Rituraj (X = and non-significant deviation from regression. 1085.2), JBSR 98-2 x Pant Rituraj (X = Further, the prediction of performance would 1286.0), DBL 21 x GBL 1 (X = 1086.4), BB be possible for 29 hybrids as they exhibited 55 x Pant Rituraj (X = 1118.7), Green Long non-significant deviation from regression. x Pant Rituraj (X = 1015.0) and Green Round Out of 29 stable hybrids, seven hybrid x GBL l(x = 1026.3) recorded higher fruit viz., ABR 99-32 x Pant Rituraj (X =14.15), yield with below average responsiveness (bi ABR 99-32 x GBL 1 (X = 13.90), KS 331 x > 1), which indicated that they were adaptive Pant Rituraj (X = 13.22), JBSR 98-2 x PLR 1 to favourable environments. Four hybrids viz., (X = 13.02), Sel. 4 x Punjab B!rsati (X JBSR 98-2 x GBL 1 (X = 1002:6), ABL 98-1 =12.96),andGreen.LongxP~~(:=~2.51) xplr1 ex = 1006.0),BB55xPLR1 (X = ABCL 0014 x PU~Jab Bars~tI (x. 1,4?), 1083.3) and Green Round x Punjab Barsati recorded less fr~lt borer I.nfestahon With (X = 1036.4) also possessed higher fruit yield average responsiveness (bl::: 1). and non- WI 'th a b ove average response (b' I < 1) th ere b y significant deviation from regression, Among.. th th h b 'd h. I t e t ti ffru't suggestmg that they were adaptive to poor 0 er y n s avmg ess mles a on 0 I... b 15 h b d t bl d t orer, y n s were average s a e an lour environments. Though eight hybnds, out of. 26 hyb n 'd s were a b ove average sa t bl e. Th'rt I een stable 2 hybrids exhibited non-significant bl and hybrids had less infestation of fruit borer but S di values, t~ei~ mean values were below were poorly adaptedto different environments average for fruit yield ~er pl~n.t and there~ore, as they exhibited significant deviation from these were useless for IdentIfymg stable yield. regression. The stability of the genotypes was A perusal of Table 2 revealed that none determined on the basis of three stability of the parents was identified as stable for fruit parameters viz., overall mean (X), regression yield per plant while comparing all the three coefficient (bi) and deviation from regression parameters of stability. Further, the prediction (S2di). The most widely adapted hybrids of performance would be possible for 26 identified on the basis of fruit yield per plant hybrids as they depicted non-significant along with less infestation of fruit borer were deviation from regression. JBSR 98-2 x Pant Rituraj, ABL 98-1 x Pant Among the stable hybrids, seven Rituraj, ABL 98-1 x GBL 1, Morvi 4-2 x GBL hybrids namely JBSR 98-2 x Pant Rituraj 1, Morvi 4-2 x PLR 1 and Green Round x GBL (X = 1286.0), ABL 98-1 x Pant Rituraj 1. Such crosses could be exploited for heterosis

\D... Table 2. Estimates ofstability parametersfor fruit borerinfestation (%) and fruit yield per plant (g) in brinjal Genotypes Fruit borer infeststion (%) Fruit yield per plant (g) I; ~ ~ X bi S2di E 1 ~ ~ X bi S 2 di lines JBCLOl-l 17.53 20.08 17.86 18.49-0.83 1.72** 947.43 904.87 835.07 895.80 0.32* -4738.90 ABCLOO14 20.66 20.03 19.15 19.95 0.45 0.40 553.33 796.47 628.33 659.40-0.07 25936.40* Morvi4-2 16.54 13.82 16.90 15.75 0.76 3.82** 922.83 910.63 681.07 838.20 0.74-2113.70 ABR99-32 16.88 12.32 14.49 14.56 1.79 1.00** 709.73 1329.83 730.57 923.40 0.35 235450.00** JBSR98-2 14.85 14.44 13.05 14.11 0.44 1.07** 962.37 934.37 648.17 848.30 0.96-1489.60 ~ DBL21 16.19 15.07 13.28 14.85 0.84 2.09** 1029.23 626.80 581.37 745.80 1.12 38487.90**.j::>. Sel. 4 15.59 13.81 15.42 14.94 0.57 0.84* 1082.27 943.60 711.10 912.30 1.06-4490.80 w z KS331 16.78 14.53 15.41 15.58 0.92-0.02 1114.70 1012.83 660.10 929.20 1.34-3624.20 9 ABL 98-1 15.50 14.72 13.54 14.59 0.57 0.82* 1034.27 1044.60 596.23 891.70 1.37 9459.20 N BB55 17.42 15.34 16.39 16.38 0.81 0.12 638.83 584.70 475.67 566.40 0.47* -4765.90 N 0 Green Long (GL) 15.86 16.76 15.37 15.99-0.19 0.73* 766.07 636.27 601.93 668.10 0.42-913.70 \D Green Round (GR) 16.03 17.13 15.05 16.07-0.16 1.92** 1039.23 1029.47 817.00 961.90 0.68-2414.70 Testers PLR 1 16.15 12.45 13.13 13.91 1.64* -0.17 850.87 895.87 490.73 745.80 1.15 11419.10 GBL 1 15.94 15.64 13.73 15.10 0.47 2.05** 864.97 662.60 520.10 682.60 0.93 744.60 Pant Rituraj (PR) 17.24 15.00 14.05 15.43 1.23 0.84* 824.83 846.10 723.37 798.10 0.33-2945.40 Punjab Barsati (PB) 16.32 16.61 12.79 15.24 0.53 8.08** 797.63 582.27 613.87 664.60 0.43 10975.30 GBH 1 (Check) 15.71 12.50 13.61 13.94 1.33 0.02 1090.90 1230.50 827.30 1049.60 0.91 27036.60* *,** = Significant at 5% and 1% levels of probability, respectively.

Morvi 4-2 x PLR1 16.87 11.66 13.16 13.90 2.21 0.07 1231.07 966.43 899.13 1032.20 0.85 11430.80 s;: r Morvi 4-2 x GBLl 13.03 12.82 13.28 13.04 0.02-0.07 1415.67 1198.57 992.57 1202.30 1.17-387.70 0 "T1 Morvi 4-2 x P R 18.11 12.79 16.02 15.64 1.97 3.04** 1081.03 872.63 657.53 870.40 1.17-1?71.5O :t> Morvi 4-2 x P B 14.75 13.59 12.86 13.74 0.68 0.32 1195.67 889.50 653.97 913.00 1.47 6741.70 C) ::0 ABR 99-32?' PLR1 13.92 11.87 17.50 14.43 0.00 16.08** 1305.17 1322.30 608.30 1078.60 2.17 31453.50** R c ABR 99-32 x GBLl 15.19 13.11 13.40 13.90 0.94-0.17 853.77 1277.57 1033.63 1055.00-0.27 81071.20** [j c ABR 99-32 x P R 15.38 13.76 13.31 14.15 0.85 0.13 1220.53 1219.87 815.10 1085.20 1.26 5682.00 ::0,]> ABR 99-32 x P B 15.50 12.06 13.54 13.70 1.38 0.32 1125.80 1087.97 1018.93 1077.60 0.31* -4759.60 r JBSR 98-2 x PlR1 14.42 12.65 11.98 13.02 0.96 0.37 1025.67 854.63 876.27 918.90 0.35 4986.20 ::0 m JBSR98-2 x GBLl 13.26 11.91 11.99 12.38 0.63-0.16 992.73 1066.27 948.87 1002.60 0.19 111.70 ~ JBSR 98-2 x P R 14.77 11.98 12.30 13.02 1.27-0.16 1421.47 1420.27 1016.40 1286.00 1.26 5576.00 ::0 2 JBSR 98-2 x P B 15.19 11.74 11.51 12.81 1.68 0.20 1058.20 llj 7.47 651.47 942.40 1.30 17863.80* DBl21 xplr1 13.53 13.59 11.16 12.76 0.39 3.23** 1281.73 952.80 982.43 1072.30 0.71 30170.40** DBl21 xgbll 16.34 13.72 12.41 14.16 1.47 1.59** 1449.27 1130.67 679.40 1086.40. 2.17-1242.90 DBl21 xpr 14.76 13.02 12.08 13.29 0.99 0.70* 1186.07 863.30 817.20 955.50 0.93 22245.40* DBl21 x PB 13.68 14.30 10.59 12.86 0.35 7.38** 734.87 570.37 327.37 544.20 1.15-3978.30 *,** = Significant at 5% and 1% levels of probability, respectively. Gl=Green long, GR=Green Round, Count... PR=Pant Rituraj, PB=Punjab Barsati Table 2. Contd... Hybrids Fruit borer infeststion (%) Fruit yield per plant (g) E 1 ~ E 3 X bi S 2 di E 1 ~ ~ X bi S 2 di JBCl 01-1 x PLR1 17.05 16.17 21.45 18.22-0.50 15.10** 1027.80 1290.70 719.07 1012.50 1.14 78340.50** JBCl01-1 x GBLl 15.16 17.31 16.38 16.29-0.86 0.02 1275.60 817.60 712.77 935.30 1.44 45064.50** JBCl01-1 x P R 14.11 12.20 18.50 14.94-0.19 20.63** 1125.00 1159.03 730.00 1004.70 1.25 11438.40 JBCl01-1 x P B 15.77 13.42 14.28 14.49 0.97-0.04 1762.60 1052.40 913.20 1242.70 2.16 119192.50** Z ABCl 0014 x PlRl 12.22 12.08 16.65 13.65-0.73 11.85** 1325.17 1193.43 670.60 1063.10 1.94-1088.90 ABCl0014 x GBLl 16.73 12.50 13.13 14.12 1.90* -0.17 915.97 883.13 628.57 809.20 0.87-2596.40 Z e.- ABCl 0014 x P R 12.34 11.86 12.86 12.35 0.06 0.32 1574.00 1158.70 961.53 1231.40 1.62 26397.00* 0 c ABClOOgxPB 13.54 11.38 12.47 12.46 0.84 0.14 1866.83 996.83 1031.67 1298.40 2.01 228863.30** ::0 \0 f\,j 0 5>

Table 2. Contd... Hybrids Fruit borerinfeststion (%) Fruit yield per plant (g) ~ ~ ~ X bi S2di E 1 Ei ~ X bi S2di Sel. 4 x PLR 1 15.88 13.31 10.89 13.36 1.64 4.52** 1430.90 1041.47 1198.60 1223.70 0.46 58855.10** Sel. 4 x GBL 1 16.09 12.95 11.28 13.44 1.78 2.61** 803.10 1001.97 880.93 895.30-0.11 14592.70* Sel.4 x PR 15.10 11.05 13.20 13.12 1.55 1.11** 1200.07 1243.00 900.60 1114.60 0.96 7375.80 Sel. 4 x P B 14.18 12.47 12.23 12.96 0.85-0.01 1301.23 814.47 772.10 962.60 1.31 60132.90** KS331 x PLR 1 16.82 10.79 12.12 13.24 2.63-0.11 1360.40 1450.43 959.07 1256.60 1.31 25386.40* KS331 x GBL 1 16.23 12.20 11.15 13.20 2.10 1.54** 1498.03 1073.50 1054.83 1208.80 1.09 46679.00** KS331xPR 14.64 12.33 12.68 13.22 1.04-0.17 1060.57 1162.13 634.43 952.40 1.39 31010.10** KS331 x P B 15.79 11.39 11.20 12.79 2.13 0.32 1097.40 1581.50 727.77 1135.60 1.47 226055.90** ABL 98-1 x PLR 1 17.83 10.90 15.76 14.83 2.45 7.87** 1072.10 1055.63 890.13 1006.00.0.55-3682.60 ABL 98-1 x GBL 1 14.73 11.90 12.07 12.90 1.32-0.12 1441.67 1343.37 1021.50 1268.80 1.24-3987.70 ~ ABL98-1 x P R 15.58 11.54 11.32 12.81 1.96 0.29 1461.57 1234.90 1115.43 1270.60 0.92 3944.40 ABL98-1 x P B 14.58 11.48 11.22 12.43 1.52 0.18 1252.00 931.37 686.40 956.60 1.54 7952.10 -~ Z BB55xGBL 1 16.85 11.67 13.60 14.04 2.13 0.50* 1413.53 982.80 1083.13 1159.80 0.74 63022.00**.'" BB55x PLR 1 15.88 11.49 13.56 13.64 1.73 0.88* 1115.33 1168.30 966.23 1083.30 0.50 1647.80 9 BB55x PR 14.26 11.06 13.56 12.96 1.09 2.09** 1325.20 1217.17 813.83 1118.70 1.51-2894.30 '" 0 BB55x PB 17.14 14.16 13.64 14.98 1.51 0.42 971.50 737.93 534.03 747.80 1.20 962.60 \0 G LxPLR 1 13.98 11.79 11.76 12.51 1.05-0.08 1120.17 959.17 833.80 971.00 0.78-1629.40 G LxGBL 1 14.80 11.51 11.67 12.66 1.53-0.09 998.43 1078.13 690.83 922.50 1.01 15292.60* GLxPR 15.81 12.04 12.23 13.36 1.76-0.06 1214.50 1168.70 661.77 1015.00 1.68 5945.00 GLxPB 16.55 13.08 11.76 13.80 1.88 1.90** 1303.20 798.63 753.47 951.80 1.37 64799.00** G RxPLR 1 16.72 12.94 13.72 14.46 1.66-0.16 1462.53 1199.90 1062.80 1241.70 1.06 7001.90 G RxGBL 1 12.78 16.52 '. 15.86 15.05-1.66* -0.17 1225.60 1041.70 811.67 1026.30 1.16-3006.00 GRxPR _-.14.89 11.43. 14.99 13.77 1.03 5.00** 1374.20 1420.60 961.43 1252.10 1.31 15307.50* GRxPB 17.80 14.35 12.63 14.93 1.94 2.88** 976.00 979.47 1153.73 1036.40-0.55-2981.40 Mean 14.19 1.00 988.90 1.00 SE + 1.07 0.89 123.80 0.70 *,**= Significant at 5% and 1% levels ofprobability, respectively. GL = Green:Long, GR= Green Round, PR = Pant Rituraj, ~B = Punjab Barsati \0 w

94 INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH breeding and they also have potential to throw handle through pedigree method for developing desirable transgressive segregants in the high yielding along with fruit borer resistance advancedgenerations, which the breederscan types in brinjal. REFERENCES Behera TK. eta/. (1999). OrissaJ. Hort., 27:1-4. Eberhart, SA and Russell, WA (1966). Crop Sci.; 6:36 40. Krishna Prasad, V.S.R. et a/. (2002). Indian J. Hort., 59:386-394. Krishnaiah, K. and Vijay, Q.p. (1975). Indian J. Hort., 32:84-86. Mishra, S.N. et ai. (1998). Indian J. Hort., 55:78-80. Mohanty, B.K. and Prusti, A.M. (2000). J. Agric. Sci., 70:370-373. Rai,.N eta/. (2001). Ann. Agric. Res. 22:157-159. Sidhu, A.S. (1989). IndUm J. Genet., 49:81-84. Srinivasan, G. and Sunder Babu, P.C. (1998). Proc. Nat. Symp. Mgmnt. Hort. Crops, Bangalore, 87.