I.J.S.N., VOL.6 (3) 2015: 491-494 ISSN 2229 –6441

491

GENOTYPE x ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION OF BRINJAL GENOTYPESAGAINST FRUIT BORER

1*Sivakumar, V., 1Uma Jyothi, K., 2Venkata Ramana, C., 1Paratpara Rao, M., 3Rajyalakshmi, R. & 1Uma Krishna, K.1Horticultural College and Research Station, Dr. YSR Horticultural University, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh, India.

2

3Horticulture Research Station, Dr. YSR Horticultural University, Nuziveedu, Krishna, Andhra Pradesh, India*Corresponding author Email: siva200619@gmail.com; Cell: 7382024496

ABSTRACTTotal 34 genotypes including ten parents, twenty one hybrids and three commercial checks were evaluated for fruit yieldper plant and fruit borer infestation at three different environments viz., Horticultural College and Research Institute,Venkataramannagudem (E1), Andhra Pradesh; Horticultural Research Station, Pandirimamidi (E2), East Godavari, AndhraPradesh and Horticultural Research Station, Aswaraopet (E3), Khammam, Telangana State during summer, 2014. Thestability analysis indicated that significant G x E interaction for both the attributes revealed that the genotypes had linearresponse to environmental change. Further, linear and non-linear components contributed significantly to the differences instability among the genotypes tested. The three hybrids viz., IC285140 x Bhagyamathi, Heera x Gulabi and Pusa Shyamalax Gulabi were identified as most widely adapted hybrids for yield and resistance to fruit borer based on stability analysis.Thus, these stable crosses can be recommended for commercial cultivation over wide range of environments or can be usedin further breeding programmes.

KEYWORDS: Brinjal, Fruit and Shoot borer, G x E interaction, Stability.

INTRODUCTIONBrinjal (Solanum melongena L.) also known as eggplant orgarden egg, is a major solanaceous fruit vegetable withchromosome number 2n=24. It is grown extensivelythroughout the country, in almost all the states covering anarea of 0.72 million hectares with an annual production of13.44 million tonnes. But the productivity of brinjal isonly 18.6 tonnes per hectare (National Horticulture Board,2013). This low productivity is attributed to incidence ofvarious pests and diseases. Fruit and shoot borer(Leucinodes orbonalis Guen.) is the most serious insectpest of brinjal throughout the country (Srinivasan andSunderbabu, 1998). It attacks the plant in any season andstage of growth, causing dead shoot in vegetative stageand fruit boring later rendering them unmarketable. Thispest may cause as high as 100 % fruit damage (Rahman,2007). Insecticidal control not only is uneconomical butalso invites environmental pollution and health hazard.Consequently, host plant resistance would be useful eitheras a complete control measure or as a part of the integratedpest management programme with limited dependence onpesticides. Hence, the present study was initiated to findout resistant or tolerant brinjal hybrids against fruit borerin different environments under field conditions.

MATERIALS & METHODSThe experimental material consisted of 34 promising longand round brinjal genotypes including seven lines viz., IC090053, IC 285140, IC 421194, IC 545893, IC 90806,Pusa Shyamala and Heera, three testers namely

Bhagyamathi, Gulabi and Shyamala and the resulting 21F1 hybrids developed by crossing the seven lines and threetesters in line x tester mating design and three commercialchecks viz., Ravaiyya, Kanaka Durga and US172. Allthese genotypes were evaluated in a Randomized BlockDesign with three replications for their stability duringsummer, 2014 at three different locations, viz.,Horticultural College and Research Institute,Venkataramannagudem (E1), Andhra Pradesh;Horticultural Research Station, Pandirimamidi (E2), EastGodavari, Andhra Pradesh and Horticultural ResearchStation, Aswaraopet (E3), Khammam, Telangana State.All the entries were transplanted at the age of 30 days inrandomized block design with three replications. The plotsize was maintained 4.5 x 3.75 m accommodating 25plants in each plot at a distance of 90 x 75 cm from row torow and plants to plants and all recommended package ofpractices were followed to raise a healthy crop.Observations were recorded on yield per plant and fruitborer infestation from five randomly selected plants fromeach entry in each replication. The data were analyzed onthe basis of mean performance over all the environmentsas per the stability analysis suggested by Eberhart andRussell (1966).

RESULTS & DISCUSSIONThe pooled analysis of variance for stability (Table 1)indicated that presence of significant G x E interaction forboth the characters under study.

Horticulture Research Station, Dr. YSR Horticultural University, Lam Farm, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India

Genotype x environment interactions of brinjal

TA

BL

E 1:

Analysis

of variance for yield and yieldfruit borer infestation

(%)

in brinjal

Source

dfFruit yield/plant(kg)

Fruit borerinfestation

Varieties

332.54**

94.13**E

nvironment +

(Variety x E

nvironment)

680.18**

11.29**E

nvironments

22.00**

103.94**V

ariety x Environm

ent66

0.13**8.49*

Environm

ents (Linear.)

16.98**

207.88**V

ariety x Environm

ent (Linear.)

330.11**

12.15**P

ooled Deviation

340.05

4.68**P

ooled Error

1980.07

1.61*: Significant at 5%

level; **: Significant at 1%level

TA

BL

E 2:

Mean perform

ance and stability parameters for yield per plantand

fruit borer infestation(%

)in brinjal

Parent/H

ybridY

ield/plant (kg)Fruit borer infestation (%

)E

1E

2E

3P

ooledb

iS

2di

E1

E2

E3

Pooled

bi

S2d

i

IC 090053

2.041.82

1.931.93

0.24-0.06

32.3928.80

31.9431.04

0.82-1.61

IC285140

3.212.83

3.093.04

0.32-0.02

20.3017.51

17.9718.60

0.420.81

IC 421194

2.652.21

2.072.31

0.94-0.07

31.2825.48

30.5029.09

1.32-1.56

IC 545893

1.761.51

1.891.72

-0.050.01

34.7830.77

27.6131.05

0.2023.74**

IC 90806

2.622.32

2.512.48

0.28-0.04

23.3421.21

19.2021.25

0.076.87*

Pusa Shyam

ala4.41

4.183.76

4.120.94

-0.0327.50

18.7926.02

24.101.94

-1.25H

eera3.81

3.323.07

3.401.16

-0.0727.05

23.3426.34

25.580.82

-1.52B

hagyamathi

2.642.33

2.492.48

0.33-0.04

15.7416.04

18.9416.91

0.273.82

Gulabi

3.222.84

2.722.93

0.82-0.07

21.2517.71

18.9919.32

0.620.52

Shyamala

1.861.60

2.061.84

-0.150.03

29.3823.85

32.0028.41

1.613.27

IC 090053 x B

hagyamathi

3.402.74

2.432.86

1.55-0.07

29.0426.12

27.8827.68

0.58-1.14

IC 090053 x G

ulabi3.28

2.852.47

2.871.23

-0.0627.83

22.3632.86

27.691.86

14.25**IC

090053 x Shyam

ala2.52

2.281.94

2.250.85

-0.0537.03

28.9535.03

33.671.74

-0.57IC

285140 x Bhagyam

athi4.40

4.383.90

4.230.65

0.0116.86

17.0018.80

17.550.17

0.38IC

285140 x Gulabi

2.752.37

2.642.59

0.31-0.01

30.9725.61

34.6730.42

1.697.39*

IC285140 x S

hyamala

4.053.61

2.903.52

1.690.02

25.7022.90

26.0124.87

0.71-1.48

IC 421194 x B

hagyamathi

4.763.62

3.083.82

2.68-0.07

28.7228.15

29.0928.65

0.18-1.53

*: Significant at 5% level; **: Significant at 1%

level

492

I.J.S.N., VOL.6 (3) 2015: 491-494 ISSN 2229 –6441

493

Table 2: C

ontd.

Parent/H

ybridY

ield/plant (kg)Fruit borer infestation (%

)E

1E

2E

3P

ooledb

iS

2di

E1

E2

E3

Pooled

bi

S2d

i

IC 421194 x G

ulabi4.55

4.033.53

4.041.55

-0.0424.99

19.7628.39

24.381.62

6.07*IC

421194 x Shyam

ala3.14

2.783.07

3.000.25

-0.0135.15

29.8631.95

32.320.93

2.62IC

545893 x Bhagyam

athi2.79

2.503.04

2.78-0.20

0.0736.14

26.2535.50

32.632.32

-1.62IC

545893 x Gulabi

3.482.96

2.603.01

1.36-0.06

32.8229.41

30.3830.87

0.560.94

IC 545893 x S

hyamala

3.062.69

2.982.91

0.28-0.01

33.3427.40

33.2731.33

1.43-1.55

IC 90806 x B

hagyamathi

4.463.95

3.163.86

1.910.05

23.8120.69

21.0721.86

0.461.75

IC 90806 x G

ulabi4.60

3.953.35

3.971.90

-0.0322.61

18.6324.07

21.771.12

0.03IC

90806 x Shyam

ala3.36

2.912.87

3.040.83

-0.0638.03

33.9431.50

34.490.29

19.22**P

usa Shyamala x B

hagyamathi

3.623.15

2.553.11

1.59-0.01

31.5024.58

33.7729.95

1.912.54

Pusa Shyam

ala x Gulabi

5.194.68

4.344.74

1.33-0.06

25.6325.63

23.0124.76

-0.282.06

Pusa Shyam

ala x Shyamala

4.293.73

3.383.80

1.43-0.06

31.0826.67

29.2429.00

0.87-0.40

Heera x B

hagyamathi

5.515.35

4.595.15

1.260.09

27.0023.75

27.7126.15

0.86-1.13

Heera x G

ulabi5.90

4.974.45

5.112.29

-0.0626.38

18.7727.55

24.231.96

-0.03H

eera x Shyamala

5.614.94

4.384.98

1.87-0.04

25.5324.31

21.9923.95

-0.084.77*

Ravaiyya

2.982.28

2.782.68

0.580.12

46.3635.96

49.3543.89

2.835.99*

Kanaka D

urga2.61

2.232.68

2.510.08

0.0521.52

20.1922.86

21.530.46

-0.51U

S 1724.42

3.833.14

3.801.91

0.0024.40

19.3829.21

24.331.72

12.77**SE

of bi

0.490.64

*: Significant at 5% level; **: Significant at 1%

level

Genotype x environment interactions of brinjal

494

Higher magnitude of mean squares due to the genotypesand environments indicated considerable differencesamong the genotypes and environments for both thecharacters and these characters were influenced greatly by

environments along with the greater part of genotypicresponse was a linear function of environments i.e. theenvironments created by sowing over locations wasjustified and had linear effects. These results are inagreement with the earlier findings of Krishna et al.(2002) and Vaddoria et al. (2009). The partitioning ofenvironments + (genotypes x environments) mean squares(Table 1) showed that environments (linear) differedsignificantly and were quite diverse with regards to theireffect on the performance of the genotypes for fruit yieldand fruit borer infestation. Further, the higher magnitudeof mean squares due to environments (linear) as comparedto genotypes x environments (linear) indicated that linearresponse of environments accounted for the major part oftotal variation for both the characters studied. Similarresults were reported by Rai et al. (2001) and Vaddoria etal., (2009). Among the parents, Bhagyamathi, IC 285140and Gulabi was identified as below average responsive asit possessed least fruit borer infestation (X =16.91, 18.60and 19.32 respectively) with bi < l and non-significantdeviation from regression (Table 2). Further, theprediction of performance would be possible for otherparents except IC 545893 and IC 90806 as they exhibitednon-significant deviation from regression. IC 545893 andIC 90806 recorded significant deviation from regressioni.e., performance of these two parents cannot bepredictable. Interestingly, among all the parents, PusaShyamala recorded highest yield per plant thancommercial checks. The crosses, Heera x Bhagyamathi(5.15 kg), Heera x Gulabi (5.11 kg), Heera x Shyamala(4.98 kg), IC 285140 x Bhagyamathi (4.23 kg), PusaShyamala x Gulabi (4.74 kg), IC 421194 x Gulabi (4.04kg) and IC 421194 x Bhagyamathi (3.82 kg) registeredhighest yield per plant than the checks. Among thecrosses, IC 421194 x Bhagyamathi exhibited more thanone bi value, hence is adaptable to favourableenvironments with less than average stability. Heera xBhagyamathi exhibited less than one bi value hence, it is

adaptable to poor environments with more than averagestability. The stability of the genotypes was determined onthe basis of three stability parameters viz., overall mean(X), regression coefficient (bi) and deviation from

identified on the basis of fruit yield per plant long withless infestation of fruit borer was IC285140 xBhagyamathi, Heera x Gulabi and Pusa Shyamala xGulabi. Such crosses could be exploited for heterosisbreeding for developing high yielding along with fruitborer resistance types in brinjal. These stable crosseswhich are high yielders and less fruit borer infestation canbe recommended for cultivation over wide range locationsin Andhra Pradesh.

REFERENCESHttp:// nhb. gov. in/ database 2013.

Eberhart, S. A. and Russell, W.L. (1966) Stabilityparameters for comparing varieties. Crop Science. 6, 36-40.

Krishna, P. V. S. R., Singh, D. P., Pal, A. B.,Gangopadhyay, K. K. and Pan, R. S. (2002) Assessment ofyield stability and ecovalence in eggplant. Indian Journalof Horticulture. 59, 386-394.

Rahman, M. M. (2007) Vegetables IPM in Bangladesh.In: Redcliffe’s IPM world Textbook, University ofMinnesota. pp. 457-462.

Rai, N., Singh, A.K. and Tirkey, T. (2001) Phenotypicstability in long fruited brinjal hybrids. Annals ofAgricultural Res. 22,157-159.

Srinivasan, G. and Sunder Babu, P.C. (1998) Proceedingsof National Symposium on Management of HorticulturalCrops, Bangalore, 87.

Vaddoria, M. A., Dobariya, K. L., Bhatia, V. J. and Mehta,D. R. (2009) Stability for fruit yield and its componenttraits in brinjal (Solanum melongena L.). Crop Imp. 36(1),81-87.

environments thereby suggesting large differences among regression (S2di). The most widely adapted hybrids