Molecular Plant Breeding 2016, Vol.7, No.19, 1
-
9
3
hence selection can be made directly by using these characters (Figure 1). Similar result was observed by several
workers Verma
et al. (2014), Yatung
et al. (2014), Krishnamurthy et al. (2013), Kumari et al. (2011), Sarkar
et al.
(2009), Farhad
et al. (2008) and Kulkarni (2006). Other characters like days to first flowering, fruit diameter and
fruit pedicel length had direct negative effect. Thus, increase of yield per plant through direct selection for these
traits should be avoided whereas indirect selection should be more appropriate to apply. Although days to 50%
flowering and days to fruit maturity showed direct positive effects on yield/plant but its genotypic and phenotypic
correlation was negative indicating that these two traits would not be reliable criteria for improving yield/plant.
However, high positive indirect effect of number of secondary branches/plant via number of primary
branches/plant resulted in significant positive correlation with fruit yield at genotypic level. Thus, selection for the
above traits can be made indirectly through number of secondary branches/plant and number of primary
branches/plant.
Table 2 Path coefficient analysis showing direct (bold) and indirect effect of yield component on yield at genotypic and phenotypic
level
Character
PH
(cm)
PB/P
SB/P
DFFL D50%F
DFM
FD
(mm)
FL
(cm)
FPL
(cm)
FW
(gm)
F/P
100SW
Correlation
with yield
PH(cm)
r
g
0.0905 0.0302 -0.0555 -0.0343 0.0481 -0.0273 -0.0043 -0.1101 0.0023
-0.05
-0.0175 -0.0005
-0.128
r
p
-0.0351 0.0033 0.0062 -0.0159 0.0302 -0.0038 -0.0053 -0.0408 0.0003 -0.0302 -0.0142 -0.0001
-0.105
PB/P
r
g
0.0065 0.4204
-0.197 -0.0123 -0.0233 -0.0422 0.0035 -0.1451 0.0362 -0.2028
0.226
0.0122
0.082
r
p
-0.0019 0.0603 0.0385 0.0005 -0.0219 -0.0068 0.0039 -0.0439 0.0035 -0.1548 0.1802 0.0024
0.06
SB/P
r
g
0.0245 0.4029 -0.2055 0.0098 -0.0826 -0.042
0.0053 -0.0301 0.0438 -0.0214 0.2412
0.003
0.349
r
p
-0.0031 0.0333 0.0697 0.0033 -0.0364 -0.0047
0.006
-0.0004
0.004
-0.0421 0.0924 -0.0003
0.121
DFFL
r
g
0.0085
0.014
0.0055 -0.3672 0.3814 0.1223 0.0082 -0.0969
0.007
-0.4328 0.0252 0.0254
-0.299
r
p
-0.0034 -0.0002 -0.0014 -0.1652 0.2012 0.0187
0.011
-0.0355 0.0012 -0.3329 0.0194 0.0059
-0.281
D50%F
r
g
0.0099 -0.0223 0.0387 -0.3188 0.4393 0.1414 0.0053 -0.1715 -0.0015 -0.4217 -0.1347
0.027
-0.409
r
p
-0.0044 -0.0054 -0.0104 -0.1366 0.2433 0.0215 0.0072 -0.0584 0.0004 -0.3126 -0.1136 0.0061
-0.362
DFM
r
g
-0.0129 -0.0923 0.0449 -0.2338 0.3233 0.1921 0.0044 -0.0728 -0.0064 -0.4352 -0.2027 0.0116
-0.48
r
p
0.0045 -0.0137 -0.011 -0.1035 0.1747 0.0299 0.0066 -0.0239 -0.0003 -0.3198 -0.1746 0.0024
-0.428
FD(mm)
r
g
0.0122 -0.0471 0.0347 0.0956 -0.0738 -0.027 -0.0316 -0.1789
0.027
0.3418 -0.0808 -0.0052
0.067
r
p
-0.0043 -0.0054 -0.0097 0.0418 -0.0406 -0.0045 -0.0433 -0.0628 0.0031 0.2684 -0.0877 -0.0011
0.053
FL(cm)
r
g
-0.0217 -0.1331 0.0135 0.0777 -0.1644 -0.0305 0.0123 0.4582 -0.0762 0.2022
0.024
-0.0203
0.342
r
p
0.0079 -0.0146 -0.0002 0.0324 -0.0785 -0.004
0.015
0.1809 -0.0095 0.1446 0.0273 -0.0047
0.296
FPL(cm)
r
g
-0.0013 -0.0946 0.0559 0.0159 0.0041 0.0077 0.0053 0.2169
-0.161
0.0849 -0.2339 -0.0074
-0.107
r
p
0.0005 -0.0097 -0.0128 0.0087 -0.0041 0.0004 0.0062 0.0787 -0.0218 0.0673 -0.1839 -0.0017
-0.072
FW(gm)
r
g
-0.0056 -0.1055 0.0054 0.1966 -0.2292 -0.1034 -0.0134 0.1146 -0.0169 0.8082 -0.1607 -0.0269
0.463
r
p
0.0016 -0.0142 -0.0045 0.0838 -0.1159 -0.0146 -0.0177 0.0399 -0.0022
0.656
-0.1391 -0.0062
0.466
F/P
r
g
-0.0018 0.1105 -0.0576 -0.0108 -0.0688 -0.0453
0.003
0.0128 0.0438
-0.151
0.8599 -0.0033
0.691
r
p
0.0006 0.0133 0.0079 -0.0039 -0.0338 -0.0064 0.0046
0.006
0.0049 -0.1116 0.8175 -0.0008
0.698
100SW
r
g
0.0008 -0.0873 0.0104 0.1589 -0.2015 -0.0379 -0.0028 0.1584 -0.0202 0.3705 0.0481 -0.0588
0.339
r
p
-0.0002 -0.0101 0.0015 0.0682 -0.1051 -0.005 -0.0033 0.0594 -0.0026 0.2864 0.0485 -0.0142
0.323
Note: Residual effect, at genotypic level: 0.2998, at phenotypic level: 0.3366
The residual effect of the present study was 0.299 8 for genotypic level and 0.336 6 for phenotypic level
indicating that the characters studied contributed 70.02% of the yield at genotypic level and 66.34% at phenotypic
level. It is recommended that maximum attention should be paid on the above characters for selecting chilli
genotypes with higher yield. It is also suggested that further study should be made with more characters to find
