Drought tolerance QTLs 2011

“EFFECT OF DROUGHT TOLERANT QTLs ON YIELD AND
YIELD CONTRIBUTING TRAITS UNDER MANAGED

WATER STRESS AS WELL AS NON STRESS CONDITION”
M.Sc. (Ag.) THESIS
By
MANOJ KUMAR NARANG
DEPARTMENT OF GENETICS AND PLANT BREEDING
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
INDIRA GANDHI KRISHI VISHWAVIDYALAYA
RAIPUR (C.G.)
2011
“EFFECT OF DROUGHT TOLERANT QTLs ON YIELD AND
YIELD CONTRIBUTING TRAITS UNDER MANAGED
WATER STRESS AS WELL AS NON STRESS CONDITION”
Thesis
Submitted to the
Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur (C.G)
By
MANOJ KUMAR NARANG
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF
Master of Science
In
Agriculture
(GENETICS AND PLANT BREEDING)
Roll No. 12420 ID No. 110105044

JUNE 2011
CERTIFICATE-I
This is to certify that the thesis entitled “EFFECT OF DROUGHT
TOLERANT QTLs ON YIELD AND YIELD CONTRIBUTING TRAITS
UNDER MANAGED WATER STRESS AS WELL AS NON STRESS
CONDITION” submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree
of “MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE” of the Indira Gandhi
Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur, (C.G.) is a record of the bonafide research
work carried out by MANOJ KUMAR NARANG under my guidance and
supervision. The subject of the thesis has been approved by Student's Advisory
Committee and the Director of Instruction.
No part of the thesis has been submitted for any other degree or diploma or
has been published / published part has been fully acknowledged. All the
assistance and help received during the course of the investigation have been duly
acknowledged by her.
Date: Dr. S.B. Verulkar

(Chairman of the Advisory Committee)
THESIS APPROVED BY THE STUDENT’S ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Advisory Committee
Chairman : Dr. S.B. Verulkar _____________________
Member : Dr. A.K. Sarawgi _____________________
Member : Dr.(Smt.) Arti Guhey _____________________
Member : Dr. R.R. Saxena _____________________

CERTIFICATE – II
This is to certify that the thesis entitled “EFFECT OF DROUGHT
TOLERANT QTLs ON YIELD AND YIELD CONTRIBUTING TRAITS
UNDER MANAGED WATER STRESS AS WELL AS NON STRESS
CONDITION” submitted by Manoj Kumar Narang to the Indira Gandhi
Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of M.Sc. (Ag.) in the Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding has
been approved by the External Examiner and Student‟s Advisory Committee after
oral examination.
EXTERNAL EXAMINER
Date:
Major Advisor ________________
Head of the Department ________________
Dean / Dean Faculty ________________
Director of Instructions ________________

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Research is not a single man show. It brings to light patience, vigor and dedication of
the person. It needs the close co-operation of the friends and colleagues and the guidance of
experts in the field to achieve something worthwhile.
Education plays fundamental role in personal and social development and teachers
play a fundamental role in imparting education. Teachers have crucial role in preparing young
people not only to face the further with confidence but also to build up it purpose and
responsibility. There is no substitute for teacher pupil relationship. A teacher is the one who
moulds our rough edges, to give us a smooth mind and you are the world of knowledge, love
and care. Once a year, we honor you all our lives we are grateful to say, you all my teachers.
"A journey is easier when you travel together; interdependence is certainly more
valuable than independence". I bow to Almighty “GOD” who keeps ever burning before my
vagrant steps the kindly light of hopes and always showered blessing on me without whose
endless benevolence and blessing this tedious task could not have been accomplished.
With a sense of high resolve and reverence, I would like to give my sincerest thanks to
my major advisor Professor (Dr.) S.B. Verulkar, Department of Genetics, and Plant Breeding
Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur (C.G.), for his precious instruction, extra
efforts, broad and profound knowledge, unique supervision, his patient instruction, sparing his
valuable time has given me a great inspiration and help at every step during my thesis and
pleasure to conduct this thesis under his supervision.
With a great reverence, I express my sincere thanks to respected members of my
advisory committee Dr. A.K. Sarawgi, Professor, Department of Genetics, and Plant Breeding
Dr. (Smt.) Arti Guhey, Professor, Department of Plant Physiology and Dr. R.R. Saxena,
Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural statistics and Social Science (language)
College of Agriculture, Raipur, for their critical suggestions, keen co-operation and kind help
rendered as and when needed.
I wish to record my sincere thanks to Dr. M.P. Pandey, Hon’ble Vice Chancellor, Dr.
S.K. Patil, Director of Research Services and Dr. U.K. Mishra, Director of Instructions,
IGKV, Raipur, for providing me the necessary facilities for research work.
Most humbly and respectfully I wish to express my profound sense of gratitude to Dr.
O.P. Kashyap, Dean, and Dr. R.L. Pandey, ExDean, College of Agriculture, IGKV, Raipur,
for his excellent guidance, valuable suggestion, memorable advices and encouragement which is
the vital source of inspiration in my life. I pay my sincere thanks to Dr. N.K. Motiramani,
Professor and Head, Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding for his excellence guidance
during course of investigation and providing necessary facilities.
I do express my heartily gratitude and indebtedness to Dr. (Smt) Ritu R. Saxena, Dr.
Rajeev Shrivastav, Dr. S.K. Nair and other respected teachers of the Department of genetics
and plant breeding for their wise counseling and encouragement during my research work.
Sincerest thanks are also extending to the all scientists of Department of the Genetics
and Plant Breeding, COA, Raipur, for their academic, technical and logistic help.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Madhav Pandey (Librarian, Nehru
Library, Raipur) and Shri U.K. Watti for giving me there kind help during my study.
I wish to express thanks to my seniors Rakesh Dhanwani, Sunil Verma, Naresh
Mahilange and Vikas Pali, Batch mates Amit, Kritraj, Manish, Madhuri, Prerna, Revati,
Roushan, Shivam, Shyam, Sujeet, Sunil, Tarun, Tikam, and Yogesh for their co-operation
during the course of work.
Unforgettable help and assistance throughout the course of this investigation by Mr.,
Makrand, Manish, Moti, Rajesh, Yuvraj,Mahesh and others also deserve my sincere thanks.
My words fail to express my deep sense of regards to my beloved parents, Shri P.R
.Narang (Babuji) Smt Meena Devi (Maaji). Mr. B. M. Narang (Dadaji),Usha Didi and Mr.
P.L.Johnson (Jijaji), Memin Didi, Thakurram (Bade Chachaji), Kajalkiran (Badi Chachiji),
Gaindram Narang (Manjhale Chachaji),, Harendra Narang (Chhote Chachaji), Mr. T. R.
Nirala (Fufaji), and other beloved family members whose love and silent blessings were the
source of my inspiration, encouragement and appreciation that opened the gate and pave the
way to my higher studies.
Indeed the words at my command are not adequate, either in form of spirit, to express
the depth of my humility and humbleness. Whenever I will open my thesis, each page of this
manuscript will tell story of contribution of my parents, advisor, seniors, colleagues, juniors
and well wishers. It will be untold strong and never be expresses in words.
Last but not the least; I would like to convey my cordial thanks to all those
unmentioned persons who helped me to fulfill my dream come true.
Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding
College of Agriculture, Manoj Kumar Narang

IGKV, Raipur (C.G.)
Dated:
CONTENTS
CHAPTER PARTICULAR PAGE NO.
I INTRODUCTION
II REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1 Impact of drought on yield and yield
contributing characters
2.2 Variability in rice for drought tolerance
2.3 Correlation of traits related to drought
tolerance
2.4 Mechanism of drought tolerance
2.5 Heritability of traits related to drought
tolerance
2.6 Genetic Variability
2.7 Correlation and Path Analysis
III MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 Location and climate
3.2 Experimental details
3.3 Methods
3.3.1 field studies
3.4 Observation
3.5 Statistical analysis
3.5.1 Analysis of variance
3.5.2 Parameters of variations

CHAPTER PARTICULAR PAGE NO.
3.6 Correlation coefficient analysis
3.7 Path analysis
IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 General observations
4.2 Variability
4.2.2 Drought Susceptibility Index
4.2.3 Mean and variability parameters
4.2.4 Genotypic and phenotypic coefficient of
variation
4.2.5 Heritability and genetic advance
4.3 Correlation studies
4.4 Path analysis
4.5 Effect of QTLs for Yield and yield
contributing traits
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND
SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE
RESEARCH WORK
ABSTRACT
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PARTICULARS PAGE

NO. NO.
3.1 Details of the breeding materials
4.1 Analysis of variance for different characters in rice under
terminal stage drought and irrigated condition during
Kharif 2010
4.2 Mean of grain yield with Drought Susceptibility Index in
Terminal Stage Drought and Irrigated condition
4.3 Genetics parameters of variation for yield and its
components under TSD and Irrigated condition (Kharif
2010)
4.4 Correlation coefficient of grain yield and its component in
with QTL DTY 1.1 line
with QTL DTY 1.1 & 3.2 line
with QTL DTY 3.2 lines
without QTL lines
check lines
4.9 Path coefficient analysis showing direct and indirect
effects of different yield contributing character on yield in
with QTL DTY 1.1 & 3.2 lines
NO.
NO.
without QTL lines
4.13 Mean performance and percent change in days to 50%
flowering in lines with QTL and without QTL lines
under Terminal stage drought and irrigated condition.
4.14 Mean performance and percent change in Plant height in
lines with QTL and without QTL lines under Terminal
stage drought and irrigated condition
4.15 Mean performance and percent change in Panicle length
in lines with QTL and without QTL lines under Terminal
stage drought and irrigated condition.
4.16 Mean performance and percent change in Flag leaf length
4.17 Mean performance and percent change in Flag leaf width
4.18 Mean performance and percent change in flag leaf area in
4.19 Mean performance and percent change in Grain length in
4.20 Mean performance and percent change in Grain width in
4.21 Mean performance and percent change in grain L: B ratio
NO. NO.
4.22 Mean performance and percent change in Seed Index in

4.23 Mean performance and percent change in Harvest Index
4.24 Mean performance and percent change in Biological yield
4.25 Mean performance and percent change in Grain yield in
lines with QTL and without QTL lines under terminal
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Particulars Between pages

no.
3.1 Distribution of rainfall during wet season 2010
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix Particulars Page No.
I Weekly meteorological data during crop growth
period of (Kharif 2010)
II List of genotypes
CHAPTER-I
INTRODUCTION
Rice is the most consumed cereal grain in the world, constituting the
dietary staple food for more than half of the planet‟s human population. Apart
from food rice is intimately involved in the culture as well as economy of many
societies. Rice is an integral part of creation myth and remains today as leading
crop and most preferred food (Huke and Huke, 1997). Possibly the oldest
domesticated grain (~10000 years), rice is the staple food for 3 billion people (60%
of the world‟s population) and growing rice is the largest single use of land for
producing food, covering 9% of the earth's arable land. Rice a member of the
family Poaceae originated from South-East Asia and in the Asia, where more than
90% of world‟s rice is produced and consumed (Li and Xu, 2007) thus rice is
immensely important to food security of Asia. Out of 24 species only two species
(O. glaberima and O. sativa) are cultivated.
In world, rice has occupied an area of 154.32 million hectares, with a total
production of 661.8 million tons in 2008 (Anonymous, 2009). In Asian countries,
rice is the main staple crop covering about ninety per cent of rice grown in the
world, with two countries, China and India, growing more than half of the total
crop. Rice provides about two-third of the calorie intake for more than two billion
people in Asia, and a third of the calorie intake of nearly one billion people in
Africa and Latin America (Shastry et al., 2000)
India, the second largest producer of rice after China has an area of over
43.77 million hectares with the production of 96.43 million tons in 2008
(Anonymous, 2009). Rice being the main source of livelihood for more than 120 –
150 million rural household is the backbone of the Indian Agriculture. It occupies
about 23.3 per cent of the food grain production and 55 percent of cereal
production. The rice plays a vital role in the national food security. Even then rice
self-sufficiency in India is precarious. The country's population of more than a
billion is growing at 1.8% per year, outpacing the 1.4% annual growth rate of rice
production.
In India, rice is grown under four ecosystems: irrigated, rainfed lowland,
rainfed upland and flood prone. More than half of the rice area (55%) is rainfed
and distribution wise 80% of the rainfed rice areas are in eastern India, making its
cultivation vulnerable to vagaries of monsoon. Even through the region receives
good rainfall yield losses caused by drought every year reach 2.9 million tons
annually (Widawsky and O‟Toole, 1990).
Chhattisgarh popularly known as “Rice Bowl of India” occupies an area
around 3610.47 thousand hectares with the production of 5.48 MT and
productivity of 1517 kg ha-1 (Anonymous, 2010). The prime causes of low
productivity of rice in Chhattisgarh are inappropriate adoption of agronomical
practices, limited irrigation (28.0 %), lack of improved varieties suitable to
different ecosystems and lack of extension services. Chhattisgarh farmers are
mainly depending on climate for rice cultivation.
In general, rice is grown in the diverse environment conditions of a wide
range of latitude and altitudes. The rice crop need hot and humid climate. It is best
suited to the regions which have high humidity, prolonged sunshine and an assured
supply of water.
The major climatic factor affecting growth and yield include solar
radiation, temperature and rainfall (the later is particular important in rainfed rice
culture). Temperature, solar radiation and rainfall are important weather factor that
influence rice yield directly by affecting the physiological process involved in
grain production and indirectly, through their effect on disease and insect pressure.
These factors are often difficult to differentiate in the field. In temperate regions,
the rice calendar is circumscribed by the temperature regime. In the tropics, it is
determined primarily by onset and withdrawal of the monsoon (Seshu and Caddy,
1989). The average requirement for blooming is in the range of 26.50C to 29.50C
while at the time of ripening the temperature should be in between 20-250C (De
Datta, 1981).
Drought stress is a major constraint to rice production and yield stability in
rainfed region (Evenson et al., 1996). It acts as a serious limiting factor in
agriculture production by preventing a crop from reaching the genetically
determined theoretical maximum yield. The effect of drought on crop production
and overall economy is well known. The annual reduction in rice yields due to
drought averages 18 million tons globally (O‟ Toole, 2004). In Asia alone, it is
estimated that a total of 20 million ha of rice field (16 million ha in upland and 13
million ha in lowland) are drought prone. In the eastern states of India viz.
Jharkhand, Orissa and C.G. alone, total rice production losses in severe droughts
(about 1year in 5) averages 40%, valued at $ 650 million (Pandey et al., 2005). In
these areas, drought risk reduces productivity even in non drought years, because
farmers avoid purchasing inputs when they fear crop loss, becoming mired in cycle
of low productivity, poverty and food insecurity (Pandey et al., 2005). Rice is
particularly sensitive to drought stress during reproductive growth, when even
moderate stress can result in drastic reduction in grain yield. The development of
cultivars with improved drought tolerance is thus an important element in reducing
risk; increasing productivity and alleviating poverty in communities depend on
rainfed production.
Compared with other cereals, rice requires more water to produce good
yields. However, declining water supplies are compelling rice researchers to
explore new ways for producing high yields with less water (Farooq et al., 2010).
An approach to minimizing agricultural losses incurred by drought stress is to

develop, via, genetic means, plant cultivars that can escape or withstand periods of
drought. Such development should have a lasting economic impact on agriculture
worldwide. However, despite many decades of research, drought tolerance
continues to a major challenge to plant breeders, partly because of the perceived
complexity of the traits. Accumulating evidence suggests that plant response to
drought tolerance is controlled by more than one gene (Zhang et al., 2001) and is
highly influenced by environmental variation. The quantification of drought
tolerance poses serious difficulties. Direct selection in the field is not always
possible because uncontrollable environmental factors, such as variation in
rainfall, interactions with extreme temperatures and variations in salinity and
nutrient availability adversely affect the precision and repeatability of such traits
(Nguyen et al., 1997).
Since drought is stage specific phenomenon and is developmentally
regulated, selection and breeding is difficult. Tolerance at one stage of plant
development may be poorly correlated with tolerance at other developmental
stages. Specific stages throughout the ontogeny of the plant, including seed
germination and emergence, seedling survival and growth, vegetative and
reproductive growth should be evaluated separately for the assessment of drought
tolerance and identification of genetic components. Each developmental stage,
which should be considered as a separate trait, may require a different screening
procedure and simultaneous or sequential screening may be impractical or
impossible. Furthermore, selection for drought tolerance using phenotypic
measurements requires specialized personnel and extensive investment in field
nurseries or green house facilities. These complexities have led to limited success
in developing drought-tolerant plants or improving crop yields in dry
environments.
Despite the importance of drought as constraints, little efforts have been
devoted to developing drought tolerant rice cultivars. Most improved cultivars
grown in drought prone area are originally bred for irrigated conditions and were
not selected for drought tolerance. These cultivars have high yield potential but
often highly prone to yield reduction under drought. On the other hand some
traditional rice cultivars grown in rainfed areas are highly drought tolerant but
have low yield potential. In order to have high yield in non drought years, farmers
require cultivars that combine high yield potential with improved tolerance to
drought (Kumar et al., 2008).
Progress is being made in developing drought tolerant rice germplasm
through conventional breeding (physiological dissection) and the use of molecular
tools. Identification of quantitative trait loci (QTL) conferring improved drought
resistance may facilitate breeding progress (Bernier et al., 2009a). The advent of
saturated molecular maps promised rapid progress towards the improvement of
crops for genetically complex traits like drought resistance via. analysis of
quantitative trait loci (QTL) (Price et al., 2002a).
Many important agronomic traits in crop plants, including stress tolerance,
are complex traits controlled by quantitative trait loci (QTLs). Isolation of these
QTLs holds great promise to improve world agriculture but is a challenging task
(Zhong Hai et al. 2005).
In QTL analysis, rice has been receiving exceptional attention, because it
has been used as a model plant in molecular biology. It contains approximately 3.5
times as much DNA as Arabidopsis, but only approximately 20% as much as
maize and approximately 3% as much DNA as wheat. In this chapter, QTL will be
viewed globally from different perspectives, using rice as a model (Xu, 2001).
QTLs are marvelous genetic entities demonstrating great utility in genetic
understanding of complex traits and promise greater impact in crop improvement
endeavors they have given as a clearer view of the genetics of agronomically
important and several other traits too. The distinction and clarity between
monogenic and polygenic traits is blurred with the increase in power and precision
of methods to detect and map QTLs (Shashidhar, 2005).
Keeping the above points in view, the present piece of research was
undertaken with the following objectives:
1 To understand the effect of DT QTLs on yield under stress condition.
2. To understand the effect of DT QTLs on yield under non-stress condition.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Drought is the most important abiotic stress in rainfed. Approximately 45%
of world rice is grown under rainfed condition (Verulkar et al 2010). The
estimated average loss in rice production during drought years for eastern India is
5.4 million tones. In Asia alone, about 34 million ha of rainfed lowland and 8
million ha of upland rice (Huke and Huke, 1997) are subject to frequent drought
stress. In this area water shortage is the major constraint in productivity, and for
this reason drought resistance has been targeted by breeders (Nguyen et al., 1997).
One of the limitations in developing drought tolerant genotypes in rice is
narrow genetic base and most of the known drought tolerant donors have low
breeding value and progenies are low yielding particularly under non-stress
condition.
Achieving drought resistance in rice will be necessary for meeting the
growing water shortage of the world. And it requires a deeper understanding of the
mechanism that could facilitate drought resistance (Serraj et al., 2011). Progress is
being made in developing drought tolerant rice germplasm through conventional
breeding (physiological dissection) and the use of molecular tools. Identification of
quantitative trait loci (QTL) conferring improved drought resistance may facilitate
breeding progress (Bernier et al., 2009). Recently, QTLs with large effect on grain
yield under drought stress (DT QTLs) has been indentified along with
development of lines with and without QTLs. This study aims to understand the
effect of these DT QTLs on yield and yield contributing traits under managed
water stress as well as non stress condition. The available literature has been
classified into following headings:
2.1. Impact of drought on yield and yield contributing characters
2.3. Correlation of traits related to drought tolerance
2.4. Mechanism of drought tolerance
2.5. Heritability of traits related to drought tolerance
2.6. Genetic Variability
2.7. Correlation and Path Analysis
2.1. Impact of drought on yield and yield contributing characters
Puckridge and O‟Toole (1981) shown that biomass production of rice is a
function of water use. The shortage of water in the soil suppresses the leaf
expansion, tillering and photosynthetic rate along with leaf area due to
senescence. All these factors are responsible for reduction in dry matter
accumulation.
Row et al. (1983) studied the yield component of rice varieties viz. Rasi
and IR-20 under moisture stress condition. The reproductive and ripening phase
were vulnerable and crucial for moisture stress, which resulted in permanent
damage to growth and yield.
Krishnaya and Murty (1991) exposed five upland rice varieties to soil
moisture stress of 25% field capacity at seedling stage. With increase in soil
moisture stress, there was a decrease in stress, relative water content and water
potential of leaf. The cultivar which maintained high relative water content and
positive turgor, in spite of reduced leaf water potential during stress also had
optimum photosynthesis and solute accumulation.
Woperesis et al. (1996) reported that water stress during flower induction
and inflorescence development leads to delay in flowering (anthesis) or even to
complete inhibition as apical morphogenesis is sensitive to water deficit.
Pantuwan et al. (2002) reported that the drought stress developed prior to
flowering generally delayed the flowering of genotypes and such a delay was
associated with drought susceptibility in rice.
Deming et al. (2004) found that drought stress during reproductive stages
showed severe drought stress in panicle development stage caused great yield
loss by reducing spikelet per panicle in upland rice.
Deshmukh et al. (2007) observed that in rice, water stress during flowering
can reduce the harvest index by as much as 60%, largely as a result of a reduction
in grain set. Panicles in stress plants fail to full exert (emerge) from the flag leaf
sheath, flowering is delayed and the percentage of spikelet that open at anthesis is
reduced.
Large scale screening for drought tolerance in field is complicated because
of difference in phenology and rains during drought stress periods (Blum, 2002).
Drought resistance traits are divided into primary traits, secondary traits,
integrative traits, phenology, and plant-type traits. Primary traits are further
divided into constitutive traits (i.e. under no drought stress; e.g. rooting depth, root
thickness, branching angle and root distribution pattern (Lafitte et al., 2001) and
induced traits (e.g. hardpan penetration and osmotic adjustment). Secondary traits
include maintenance of plant water status, canopy temperature, leaf rolling score
and leaf death score. Secondary traits are also useful for screening (Lafitte et al.,
2004).
Transfer of primary or secondary traits such as those associated with root
growth to desirable background to enhance grain yield is complicated by a lack of
clear understanding of the genetic of component traits and their interaction and a
lack of tightly linked marker Uga et al (2011).
Although yield under stress generally have higher phenotypic correlation
with some of yield component (e.g. grain number and percent fertile spikelets;
integrative traits) then they do with primary traits, primary traits are likely to be
controlled by fewer underlying gene or QTLs. Therefore molecular
characterization of primary traits (e.g. QTL analysis) will presumably be a more
promising avenue then the study of yield components.
Most of the improved rice cultivars now grown in the rainfed drought-
prone areas were bred for irrigated conditions and are highly susceptible to
drought. Recently, QTLs with large effects on grain yield under drought stress,
namely DTY1.1, DTY2.1, DTY2.2, DTY3.1, DTY4.1, DTY9.1 and DTY12.1 have been
identified by IRRI scientists, explaining 31-77% of the phenotypic variance.
Molecular approaches to drought tolerance have been widely applied to
rice, beginning with QTL analysis. Several experiments have been reported for
yield and yield component under different type of drought stress in rice. QTL have
been detected for several root related traits and osmotic adjustment (OA) in rice
(Li et al., 2005). The Way Rarem-derived allele of qtl12.1 was confirmed to
improve grain yield under drought mainly through a slight improvement (7%) in
plant water uptake under water-limited conditions (Bernier et al., 2009).

Success in crop improvement depends on the magnitude of genetic
variability and the extent to which the desirable characters are heritable. The work
on estimates of genetic variability has been carried out earlier in rice, however
scarce information is available on these aspects in upland rice.
Singh et al. (1984) reported grain yield/ m2 had maximum GCV followed
by plant height. However, Rahangdale and Khorgade (1988) also reported higher
GCV for grain yield.
Husain et al. (1987) reported high genotypic coefficient of variations for
grain length: breadth ratio and grain breadth.
Datta and Rao (1988) studied Genetic variability of plant characters in
thirty rice strains and founded high genetic coefficient of variation was observed
for grain yield/ m2
Genetic variation has been observed in rice for plasticity and also in
response to soil drying after flooding Suralta et al.( 2010 )
Veeresh et. al (2011).predicted that variation in rice root response to
drought from a physiological perspective in terms of morphology and function
with respect to the different growth environments
Genetic differences have also been observed in the ability of seminal roots
to continue elongation and form parenchyma under flooded conditions after
drought.( Suralta and Yamauchi 2008; Suralta et al.,2008a,b,2010)
Different genotype have exhibited different responses in plasticity
depending on type of drought stress.( Kano et al., 2011)

Chauhan et al. (1993) studied 21 advanced breeding lines/ cultivars and
reported that high expected genetic advance coupled with high heritability was
observed for days to 50% flowering and panicle length and low to moderate
heritability for grain yield.
Patil et al. (1993) studied 37 promising cultures of upland rice. They
reported high genotypic coefficient of variation for grain yield/ m2 and plant
height.
Chaudhary and Das (1998) worked out estimation of variability in 11 deep
water rice varieties and its attributing characters. High genotypic coefficient of
variation was observed for grain yield.
Singh et al. (1999) studied F5 generation of rice cross genotypic coefficient
of variation and phenotypic coefficient of variation higher for all the character
except for days to 50% flowering.
The high GCV estimates for number of productive tillers per plant, number
of spikelet per panicle and grain yield per plant was reported by Shivani and
Reddy (2000), Gomez and Rangasamy (2002) and Gomez and Kalamani (2003).
These traits showing high genotypic variability offer greater scope for genetic
improvement through selection.
Umadevi et al. (2009) reported that PCV was higher than GCV for all the
characters studied. PCV ranged from days to 50% flowering to leaf length. GCV
and PCV was low (< 10%) for days to 50% flowering and grain length. Similar
findings of low GCV (7.14%) were reported earlier for days to 50 per cent
flowering (Shivani and Reddy, 2000). GCV for plant height, panicle length, leaf
breadth, 100 grain weight, kernel breadth, kernel length/ breadth ratio and grain
yield per plant recorded moderate (10-20%) level of GCV indicating considerable
amount of variability expressed for these characters and high GCV (> 20%) for
total number of productive tillers per plant (20.01%), number of secondary
branches, leaf length and straw yield.
2.3 Correlation of traits related to drought tolerance
Shahid et al. (1994) reported positive correlation between root length, root
dry weight, shoot dry weight, stomata frequency and drought tolerance, whereas
negative correlation existed between shoot length and stomata size.
Babu et al. (2003) reported positive correlation of biomass under stress
with yield, per cent spikelet fertility, number of grains per panicles, harvest index
and relative yield. On the other hand, leaf rolling scores had negative correlation
with yield and harvest index.
Kumar et al. (2004) observed that in rice there is a negative association
between delay in flowering and grain yield, relative water content and post
flowering dry matter production under rainfed condition. A direct relationship was
observed between delay in flowering and sterility. The flowering delay under
drought stress condition is governed by leaf water status.
Lafitte et al. (2004) found negative correlation between plant height and
yield. Tall lines yield poorly in rainfed experiment but no significant association
was observed between yield and height under control condition.
Lanceras et al. (2004) using double haploid mapping population measured
correlation between traits and grain yield at different water levels reported
correlation between grain yield and biological yield ranges 0.70 to 0.54, indicating
that genetic improvement in the grain yield would likely be accompanied by
improvement of biological yield. Further they found that with increase drought
stress, correlation between grain yield and harvest index increase dramatically,
indicating that harvest index is also a primary determinant of grain yield. Positive
correlation was also found between total spikelet number and grain yield under
stress condition. Negative correlation was found between grain yield and days to
flowering after initiation of irrigation gradient.
Singh et al. (2004) reported significant and positive correlation between
grain yield per plant and yield contributing traits, effective flag leaf breadth and
total grains per panicle. A negative correlation was found between grain yield and
plant height.
Verulkar et al. (2004) reported positive correlation of spikelet fertility,
harvest index and biological yield with yield under stress.
Zou et al. (2005) found significant positive correlation between canopy
temperature and spikelet fertility, leaf water potential, grain weight per plant and
leaf rolling score in stress. However, there was a significant negative correlation
only between the canopy temperature and spikelet fertility, grain weight per
panicle under normal conditions.
Gomez et al. (2005) observed that biological yield and plant height was
positively correlated with grain number/ panicle. Leaf area per plant showed the
highest positive direct effect on root weight, followed by biological yield and root
breadth. Selection based on biological yield may help identify drought-resistant
types.
Gomez et al. (2006) reported positive and significant correlation of panicle
length and number of productive tillers with grain yield under stress. They also
observed positive correlation of root traits with plant height under stress. Similar
relation was also reported earlier in rice by Venuprasad et al. (2002).
Umadevi et al. (2009) reported that grain yield per plant was positively and
significantly associated with days to 50% flowering, number of productive tillers
per plant, number of secondary branches per panicle and straw yield.
Fu et al. (2010) reported correlations of grain yield per plant with spikelet
per panicle, 1000 grain weight, number of panicles per plant and percentage seed
set was significant positive. The number of grains per panicle also had strong
positive correlations with spikelet per panicle and percentage seed set, but the
number of panicles per plant had significant negative correlations with spikelet per
panicle, grains per panicle and 1000 grain weight. In addition, there was a
significant negative correlation between panicles per plant and percentage seed set.
Gomez et al. (2010) reported significant positive correlation between plant
height and biomass under stress. Significant negative correlations were noticed
between water stress indicators such as leaf rolling and leaf drying with biomass
under stress.
Negative correlations of water stress indicators with biomass and positive
correlations of plant production traits with biomass have been reported in rice. It
was also reported by Babu et al. (2003), Gomez et al. (2006) and Srinivasan et al.
(2008).
2.4 Mechanism of drought tolerance

Rice, like other crops can potentially resist drought stress using three
different strategies: drought escape, drought avoidance and drought tolerance
(Bernier et al., 2008). A proper timing of life cycle, resulting in the completion of
most sensitive developmental stages while water is abundant, is considered to be a
drought escape strategy (Price et al., 2002b). This mechanism involves rapid
phonological development (early flowering and early maturity), developmental
plasticity (variation in growth period depending on extend of water-deficit) and
remobilization of pre-anthesis assimilates to grain.
Drought avoidance is the ability of the plant to maintain relatively high
tissue water potential despite a shortage of moisture. Mechanisms for improving
water uptake, storing in plant cell and reducing water losses confer drought
avoidance. Drought avoidance is performed by maintenance of turgor through
increased rooting depth, efficient root system and increased hydraulic conductance
and by reduction of water loss through reduced epidermal (stomatal and lenticular)
conductance, reduced absorption of radiation by leaf rolling or folding and reduced
evaporation surface (leaf area) (Passioura, 1976). Number of worker have
emphasized the importance of traits responsible for avoidance mechanism of
drought tolerance.
Drought affects rice at morphological, physiological and molecular levels
such as delayed flowering, reduced dry matter accumulation and partitioning and
decreased photosynthetic capacity as a result of stomatal closure, metabolic
limitations and oxidative damage to chloroplasts. Small-statured rice plants with
reduced leaf area and short growth duration are better able to tolerate drought
stress, although the mechanisms are not yet fully understood. Increased water
uptake by developing larger and deeper root systems, and the accumulation of
osmolytes and osmoprotectants are other important mechanisms for drought
resistance (Farooq et al., 2009).
Mechanism such as osmotic adjustment where by a plant maintains cell
turgor pressure under reduced soil water potential, increase in elasticity in cell and
decrease in cell size and desiccation tolerances by protoplast are categorized as
drought tolerance mechanisms (Sullivan and Ross, 1978).
Veeresh et. al (2011)temporal and spatial heterogeneity is a possible path
toward the use of root and dehydration avoidance traits for improving drought
resistance in rice
O‟Toole and Datta (1986) suggested that increase root depth and root
density in rice increase the capacity to extract available soil water and may be
responsible for increase drought avoidance in some rice genotypes.
Hacke et al. (2001) and Stiller et al. (2003) revealed that the wider xylem
vessels may decrease chances of cavitations, which would reduce xylem water
conductivity.
However, Passioura (2006) reported that the contribution of root depth to
drought avoidance may be site specific, as the subsoil is often inhospitable to root
growth due to unfavorable pH or nutrient content.
2.5 Heritability of traits related to drought tolerance

Babu et al. (2003) reported high heritability (broad sense) of leaf rolling,
grain yield, plant height, spikelet fertility, harvest index and days to heading (0.65,
0.59, 0.49, 0.43, 0.60 and 0.70 respectively), while low to moderate for relative
water content, plant height, grain yield, biomass, spikelet fertility, grain per
panicle and 1000 grain weight under stress.
Lanceras et al. (2004) computed broad sense heritability (h2) across five
water regimes using 154 double haploid mapping population derived from a cross
between two rice cultivars, CT9993-510 to 1-M and IR62266-42 to 6-2. They
reported that panicle number and plant height had highest h2, 0.61 and 0.73,
respectively, harvest index and spikelet fertility had moderate h2, 0.46 and 0.45
respectively, while grain yield and biological yield had the lowest h2, 0.32 and
0.31 respectively.
Singh et al. (2004) observed high heritability of traits like grain yield and
yield contributing character, suggesting that the importance of these traits as
criteria for improving overall yield under stress. Moderate heritability of panicle
length and low heritability of leaf breadth and test weight.
Kumar et al. (2008) reported high heritability ( broad sense) for grain yield,
harvest index, 50% flowering, leaf rolling date and leaf rolling was 0.48, 0.45,
0.47, 0.20 and 0.42, respectively for IR55419/ IR64 and 0.45, 0.38, 0.73, 0.26 and
0.30, respectively for IR55419/ Way Rarem.
Venuprasad et al. (2009) reported heritability in broad sense under lowland
stress was 0.73 in 2006 and 0.55 in 2007 for grain yield.
Bernier et al. (2009) reported heritability 0.75, 0.49, 0.54, 0.94 and 0.44 for
grain yield, biomass yield, harvest index, days to 50% flowering and plant height,
respectively.
Umadevi et al. (2009) estimated heritability in broad sense and genetic
advance as percentage of mean of days to 50% flowering 0.93 and 14.25, plant
height (cm) 0.99 and 28.54, panicle length (cm) 0.87 and 20.26, number of
secondary branches/ panicle 0.91 and 39.03, leaf length (cm) 0.99 and 61.87, leaf
width (cm) 0.92 and 27.34, grain length (mm) 0.98 and 17.68, grain breadth (mm)
0.94 and 22.82, grain L/ B ratio 0.95 and 33.19, straw yield (g) 0.99 and 58.37,
100 grain weight (g) 0.93 and 28.95, and grain yield per plant (g) 0.78 and 29.36
respectively.
Verulkar et al. (2010) reported broad sense heritability of 50% flowering
(0.92 for control, 0.78 for moderate and 0.83 for severe drought), plant height
(0.96 for control, 0.81 for moderate and 0.83 for severe drought), grain yield (0.55
for control, 0.52 for moderate and 0.73 for severe drought) and harvest index (0.58
for control, 0.56 for moderate and 0.78 for severe drought).
2.6 Genetic Variability
The basic requirement of plant breeding is the presence of genetic
variability. Importance of genetic variability in any breeding material is a
prerequisite as it provides not only a basis for selection but also some valuable
information regarding selection of diverse parents for use in hybridization
programme. Variability in rice, before it became a subject of study by plant
breeder was the concern of taxonomists such as Linnaeus (who gave the generic
name „Oryza‟), De Candolle (1886), Camus (1920), Roschevicz (1932), Chatterjee
(1947) and Porter (1956).
2.6.1 PCV and GCV
Verma et al. (2000) reported that the higher magnitude of genotypic
coefficient of variation and phenotypic coefficient of variation were observed for
number of sterile and total spikelets per panicle, grain yield, biological yield,
number of productive and total tillers per plant.
Iftekharuddaula et al. (2001) evaluated nineteen rice hybrids in order to
determine variability and it was observed that all the tested character had
significant variation. The highest genotypic coefficient of variation for panicles
per plant followed by spikelets per panicles and grain yield.
Das et al. (2001) investigated 29 boro rice genotypes to study genotypic
and phenotypic coefficient of variation, broad sense heritability and genetic
advance for plant height, number of panicles plant-1, panicle length, number of
filled grains panicle-1, 100-grain weight, grain yield and harvest index. For all the
characters, the estimates of GCV were smaller than that of PCV, suggesting the
influence of environment on them. High heritability coupled with high genetic
advance for plant height, panicles plant-1, harvest index and grain yield plant-
1
indicated that these characters were predominantly governed by additive gene
action. High heritability and moderate to low genetic advance for panicle length,
filled grains panicle-1 and 100-grain weight suggested the predominant role of non-
additive gene action in their inheritance.
Singh et al. (2002) evaluated the phenotypic and genotypic variability in
fifteen quantitative characters of 52 genotypes of lowland rice. The genotypic and

phenotypic variances were high for grain yield per plant, panicle weight, number
of grains per panicle and number of branches per panicle, grains per panicle and
100 seed weight and low for panicle length. Heritability in the broad sense ranged
from 3.61 for number of effective tillers per plant to 99.57 for grain length. High
heritability with high genetic advance was recorded for number of grains per
panicle followed by panicle weight and grain yield per plant.
Bhandarkar et al. (2002) worked out estimates of variability, genetic
advance as percentage of mean in 22 semi deep-water rice genotypes for yield and
its attributing characters. High heritability with high genetic advance as percent of
mean were observed for panicle weight, significant negative correlations were
observed for days to 50% flowering, maturity, plant height with grain yield per
plant.
Kavitha and Reddy (2002) studied variability and heritability in twenty one
genotypes of rice. Considerable amount of variability was observed for all the
quantitative characters studied.
Gomez and Kalamani (2003) conducted a study for physiological and
economic traits (Plant height, number of productive tillers per plant, panical
length, 1000 grain weight, biological yield per plant) in 11 rice landraces and
reported significant variation among land racers for all characters, especially
biological yield per plant.
Khedikar et al. (2003) studied genetic variability for seven characters viz.
days to 50% flowering, plant height, effective tillers per plant, panicle length, test
weight, head rice recovery and grain yield per plant in 20 scented rice genotypes
grown under 3 different environments. The PCV was higher than GCV among all
characters, indicating that the variation among them is not only due to genetic
content but also due to the influence of environment.
Mishra et al. (2003) evaluated 88 rice genotypes and reported presence of
considerable amount of variability for the plant height, flag leaf width, ear bearing
tillers per plant, 100-seed weight, hulling and milling percentage, panicle length,
biological yield, harvest index, kernel length after cooking, gelatinization
temperature and grain yield. The high genotypic variation was observed for
biological yield and grain yield per plant.
Sarma and Bhuyan (2004) studied the genetic variation in fifty eight ahu
rice genotypes, consisting mostly of indigenous and improved cultivars in Assam,
India during the summer season of 2000. They used grain yield per plant and 8
yield components for estimating the genetic parameters and in the D2 analysis.
They reported highest PCV and GCV being exhibited by the number of grains per
panicle, followed grain yield per plant and number of effective panicles per plant.
Medhi et al. (2004) studied forty indigenous scented rice varieties of
Assam including an introduction from Thailand and indicated that there was
considerable variation among the varieties for all the traits. The estimates of
genotypic and phenotypic coefficient of variation were found to be high for grain
per panicle, 100-grain weight, grain yield per plant and effective tillers.
Souroush et al. (2004) evaluated 36 genotypes and determined the
relationship between grain yield and yield components. Analysis of variance
showed a highly significant difference among the genotypes for all the traits.
Tyagi et al. (2004) evaluated seventy rice genotypes for genetic variability
and association among some seedlings and mature plant characters. Significant
genotypic variations were observed for most of the character studied. The yield
components exhibited high heritability coupled with high genetic advance.
Singh et al. (2005) studied seven characters in twenty rice genotypes
including a local check during Kharif 2004. Through analysis of variance, they
reported significant differences among the genotypes for all the characters. High
estimates of (GCV) and (PCV) were reported for grain yield, biological yield,
grain density and harvest index (%).
Singh and Singh (2005) working with twenty promising mutants of Pusa
Basmati-1 rice reported high PCV and GCV for head rice recovery, aroma and
alkali digestion value; which suggest that there is a possibility of improving these
characters through direct selection.
Hasib (2005) reported high phenotypic and genotypic coefficient of
variation, heritability and genetic advance for spikelets number per panicle, test
weight and grain yield per panicle indicating important role of additive gene action
for the expression of these traits.
Bisne et al. (2006) observed high GCV for filled spikelets per panicle,
chaffy spikelets per panicle, spikelet fertility percentage, 100 grain weight, harvest
index and grain yield per plant.
Veni et al. (2006) studied variability and heritability for 7 important
physio-chemical traits viz., kernel length, kernel breadth, length breadth ratio,
kernel length after cooking, elongation ratio and alkali spreading value and
reported low to moderate estimates of variability, moderate to high heritability and
low expected genetic advance for all the characters indicated the preponderance of
both additive and non-additive gene effects in conditioning these traits.

Devi et al. (2006) conducted a study on fifty four standard rice genotypes
that are well adapted to different climatic conditions. They reported higher PCV
than GCV for all the characters plant height, panicle length, tillers per hill, 50%
flowering, maturity duration and grain yield per plant.
Monalisa et al. (2006) studied twenty lowland rice cultivars of West
Bengal. They reported highest GCV for high density grains per panicle and panicle
weight.
Jaiswal et al. (2007) evaluated twenty five aromatic rice genotypes for
yield and quality characters to assess the genetic variability. Highest GCV was
recorded for grain yield per plant and number of panicle bearing tillers. High
heritability coupled with high genetic advance was observed for yield per plant,
number of panicle bearing tillers and number of grains per panicle.
Sharma et al. (2008) reported significant differences among rice cultures
for milling and physico-chemical traits.
Bisne et al. (2009) found that low, moderate, and high genotypic and
phenotypic coefficient of variation were expressed by harvest index, total number
of filled spikelet‟s per panicle, 100-grain weight and spikelet fertility percentage.
Patil et al. (2009) conclude that genotype exhibited significant variability
for days to 50% flowering, flag leaf length, plant height, panicle length, number of
filled grains per panicle, 100 seed weight and grain yield per plant.
Jing et al. (2010) study the performance of five rice genotypes derived
from different germplasm in terms of yield, harvest index (HI) and grain quality at
eight agro-ecological sites of the tropics and subtropics across Asia.
2.6.2 Heritability and Genetic Advance

Verma et al. (2000) reported high heritability coupled with high genetic
advance for plant height and days to 50% flowering.
Seetharamaiah et al. (2001) evaluated sixty-four rice genotypes for floral
and morphological traits. High heritability coupled with high-expected genetic
advance in case of panicle excertion and plant height was observed indicating
additive gene action in governing these traits.
Kavitha and Reddi (2002) studied variability and heritability in 21
genotypes of rice. Considerable amount of variability was observed for all the
quantitative characters studied. High heritability coupled with high genetic
advance was observed for number of spikelets per panicle and number of filled
grains per panicle, indicating the predominance of additive gene action in
controlling these characters.
Chandra and Pradhan (2003) studied estimates of genetic variability,
heritability and genetic advance in 65 low land rice genotypes. Phenotypic
coefficient of variation (PCV) was higher than genotypic coefficient of variation
(GCV) for all the 12 characters studied indicating the influence of environment on
the characters. A moderate to high degree of heritability estimates and genetic
advance was observed for days to 50 per cent flowering, plant height and grains
per panicle. Moderate heritability values with low genetic advances were observed
for panicle length, plot yield, 100-grain weight, grain yield per plant and harvest
index.
Sarma and Bhuyan (2004) while studying fifty eight Ahu rice genotypes in
Assam reported highest “Broad-Sense Heritability” for plant height, followed by
days to flowering and number of effective panicles per plant. Grains per panicle
and the number of effective panicles per plant showed high heritability and genetic
advance.
Choudhary et al. (2004) studied genetic variability and genetic advance for
plant traits like kernel length, panicle length, effective tiller per plant, fertile
spikelet per panicle, spikelet density, biological yield and grain yield per plant and
harvest index. All these traits were exhibiting high heritability coupled with high
genetic advance and genetic variability.
Shukla et al. (2004) carried out estimation of genetic variability,
heritability and genetic advance for 12 characters in 39 “new plant type” tropical
Japonica lines along with 3 control cultivars. The genotypes showed a wide range
of variation for all the characters. Grain yield per plant, biological yield per plant,
number of tillers and panicles per plant had high values of genetic coefficient of
variation and phenotypic coefficient of variation. Grain yield per plant, biological
yield per plant, harvest index and number of grains per panicle had high
heritability with high genetic advance.
Sinha et al. (2004) worked out estimates of variability, heritability and
genetic advance in 19 local midland landraces of rice of Surguja district along with
IR-36 for yield and its attributing characters. High genotypic coefficient of
variation was observed in grain yield followed by test weight and panicles per
plant. High heritability with high genetic advance was found for grain yield
followed by test weight and panicles per plant.
Saxena et al. (2005) evaluated forty-eight scented rice genotypes in Raipur,
Chhattisgarh, India, during the kharif season of 2001 for genetic variation in seed
yield and yield-related traits

Madhavilatha et al (2005) evaluated Fifty-four elite rice genotypes for their
variability with regards to grain yield, yield components.
Das et al. (2005) assessed 22 semi deep-water rice genotypes for genetic
variability, heritability and genetic advance. Amongst the trait under study highest
GCV was recorded for effective ear bearing tillers followed by grain yield and
plant height. Heritability in broad sense was observed to be high for all the traits
under study. The traits effective ear bearing tillers, grain yield and plant height
exhibited both high heritability and high genetic advance.
Mall et al. (2005) revealed highly significant differences among the 35
genotypes for all the characters. A wide range of variation was observed for mean
values of plant height, days to panicle initiation, days to 50 per cent flowering,
number of tillers per plant, number of panicles per plant, number of spikelets per
panicle, panicle length, flag leaf length, flag leaf width.
Singh et al. (2005) studied seven characters in 20 rice genotypes including
a local check during Kharif 2004. They reported high heritability accompanied
with high expected genetic advance for plant height indicating usefulness of
simple selection for the trait.
Satyanaryan et al. (2005) revealed high variability, heritability and genetic
advance for number of grains per panicle, spikelets fertility, days to 50% flowering
and plant height, while test weight recorded high variability and heritability
coupled with low genetic advance. The number of effective tillers per plant and
panicle length had low heritability.
Panwar (2005) studied 47 genotypes of rice including 16 local basmati
varieties and 31 high yielding varieties/advance lines to assess the genetic

variability, heritability and genetic advance for panicle characters under two
sowing dates. Highly significant variations among the genotypes were observed
for different characters. The difference between genotypic and phenotypic
coefficient of variations were relatively low for almost all the characters except
number of primary branches per panicle. High to moderate genotypic coefficient
of variation with high heritability and genetic advance were recorded for grain
yield per panicle, chaffy grain, grain yield per plant and number of filled grains.
Baber et al. (2007) reported that broad sense heritability estimates for grain
yield per plant, flag leaf width, plant height, and panicle length.
Padmaja et al. (2008) found that Heritability and genetic advance were
high for all the characters except days to 50% flowering and panicle length, which
had moderate genetic advance along with high heritability indicating the
involvement of additive type of gene action in controlling these characters.
Bisne et al. (2009) found that high heritability coupled with high genetic
advance exhibited by harvest index, total number of chaffy spikelets per panicle
grain yield per plant, total number of filled spikelet per panicle and spikelet
fertility percentage.
2.7 CORRELATIONS AND PATH-COEFFICIENT ANALYSIS
2.7.1 Correlation
Grain yield of plant is influenced by a number of components characters
and environment either directly or in directly. Contribution of each character
towards increase in yield varies from crop to crop. Correlation coefficient is
therefore used to measure the mutual relationship between various plant characters
and to determine the component characters, on which selection can be based for
genetic improvement in the yield. The correlation among the traits can be
determined in terms of phenotypic correlation and genotypic correlation.
Phenotypic correlation the association between two variables that can be
directly observed. It includes both genotypic and environmental effects. While the
genotypic or genetic correlation is the inherent or inheritable association between
two variables is. Correlation studies provide better understanding of yield
components which helps the plant breeder during selection. (Robinson et al., 1951,
Johnson et al., 1955).
Tomar et al. (2000) reported that grain yield per plant was positively
associated with plant height, number of effective tillers, panicle length, number of
grains per panicle, harvest index, biological yield and days to 50 per cent
flowering.
Nayak et al. (2001) reported that grain yield showed significant positive
correlation with plant height, panicle number per plant, panicle length, total
number of spikelets per panicle and total number of grains per panicle at both
genotypic and phenotypic levels.
Iftekharuddaula et al. (2002) studied correlation and path coefficient
analysis among nineteen genotypes of irrigated rice. Harvest index, panicle and
1000-grain weight showed significant positive correlation with grain yield.
Mishra and Verma (2002) reported that grain yield per plant was
significantly and positively correlated with number of ear bearing tillers per plant,
biological yield and harvest index at genotypic and phenotypic levels. Path
analysis indicated that spikelet density had positive direct effect on grain yield,
followed by panicle length, harvest index, biological yield, plant height. Spikelets
per panicle showed positive direct effect on harvest index followed by sterility
percentage, number of ear-bearing tillers per plant, 100-grain weight and grain
yield per plant.
Rajamani et al. (2004) reported that grain yield per plant was positively
associated with plant height, days to 50 per cent flowering, panicle length, total
number of spikelet per panicle, number of filled grains per panicle and 100 grain
weight. These characters also were positively associated among themselves.
Yogameenakshi et al. (2004) reported that number of grains per panicle
and harvest index exhibited highly positive correlation with grain yield and also a
positive intercorrelation among themselves.
Pantuwan et al. (2004) reported moderate to high heritability for grain
yield under drought has a positive indirect response to selection for grain yield
which can be achieved from selection based on drought score measured in dry
season screening.
Souroush et al. (2004) evaluated 36 genotypes of rice to determine the
relationships between grain yield and its components. The grain yield had a
positive and significant genotypic correlation with, grain weight, grain maturity
and days to 50 per cent flowering. The results of path analysis indicated that the
number of panicles per plant and number of filled grains per panicle were the most
important components with high direct effects on grain yield.
Patil and Sarawgi (2005) reported that grain yield per plant had positive
significant correlation with ear bearing tillers per plant, filled grains per panicle,
plant height and days to 50% flowering. The positive and significant correlation of
head rice recovery percentage was also observed with plant height, filled grain per
panicle, panicle length, ear bearing tillers and elongation ratio.
Anurag et al. (2006) studied path coefficients values in respect of ten
quantitative traits for 47 rice genotypes. In path coefficient analysis, panicles per
plant exhibited maximum positive direct effect on grain yield per plant .Other
characters with positive direct effects were days to 50% flowering, panicle length.
Negative direct effect was found in plants height and tillers per plant.
Girish et al. (2006) worked on F8 recombinant inbred aerobic rice
population developed by single seed descent method. They reported that grain
yield per plant was positively correlated with plant height, number of tillers,
panicle length, number of panicles plant-1, test weight, straw weight, biomass
plant-1, harvest-index and grain breadth both at genotypic and phenotypic levels.
Bisne et al. (2006) revealed the positive direct effect of characters harvest
index and 100-grain weight on grain yield. Harvest index and 100-grain weight
recorded high positive correlation with significant positive direct effect on grain
yield.
Johnson et al. (2007) studied genotypic and phenotypic correlation among
14 characters in 16 low land rice genotypes. They reported grain yield per plant
was positively correlated with plant height, biological yield and harvest index at
genotypic level. They also showed panicle length was positively correlated with
grain yield at phenotypic level.
Arumugam et al. (2008) conclude that grain yield was significantly and
positively correlated with its component characters like, 1000-grain weight and
days to 50 per cent flowering irrespective of the environment.

2.7.2 Path coefficient Analysis
The selection of a genotype is based on the study of various characters
contributing towards yield of a crop plant. The yield being quantitative trait is
dependent on the various direct and indirect added by the traits. The selection of
the traits contributing directly to the yield will be beneficial for the breeder in
changing the genetic architect of the crop plant for promoting the yield potential of
the crop. Path analysis is the effective statistical tool to determine the direct and
indirect contributions of different characters towards yield.
Path coefficient is a standardized partial regression coefficient which
separates the correlation coefficient into its components of direct and indirect
effects. Thus it helps in examining the relative contribution of both the direct and
indirect effects of independent variables on dependent variable. This technique
was originally developed by Wright (1921) and was used for the first time in
plants by Dewey and Lu (1959).
Chakraborty et al. (2001) revealed high positive direct effects of harvest
index, panicle length and 100-grain weight on the grain yield per plant, indicating
the possibility of yield improvement through direct selection for these traits.
Mishra and Verma (2002) reported that grain yield per plant was
significantly and positively correlated with number of ear bearing tillers per plant,
biological yield and harvest index at genotypic and phenotypic levels. Path
analysis indicated that spikelet density had positive direct effect on grain yield,
followed by panicle length, harvest index, biological yield, plant height. Spikelets
per panicle showed positive direct effect on harvest index followed by sterility
percentage, number of ear-bearing tillers per plant, 100-grain weight and grain
yield per plant.
Satish et al. (2003) worked out genotypic and phenotypic correlations and
path coefficient analysis for 13 quantitative and physiological characters
influencing the yield in rice. Number of productive tillers per hill and number of
grains per panicle exhibited significant positive correlation with yield. Path
coefficient analysis revealed that number of productive tillers per hill and number
of grains per panicle showed higher positive direct effect on yield.
Murthy et al. (2004) revealed a significant and positive correlation of grain
yield per plant with days to flowering, days to maturity and leaf length.
Khedikar et al. (2004) revealed that the path coefficient analysis of test
weight had the highest positive direct effect on grain yield per plant. It was
followed by spikelet density, effective tillers per plant, panicle length and days to
50% flowering, and hence direct selection through these characters is more
effective.
Souroush et al. (2004) evaluated 36 genotypes of rice to determine the
relationships between grain yield and its components. The grain yield had a
positive and significant genotypic correlation with, grain weight, grain maturity
and days to 50 per cent flowering. The results of path analysis indicated that the
number of panicles per plant and number of filled grains per panicle were the most
important components with high direct effects on grain yield.
Naik et al. (2005) reported that plant height had the positive and significant
correlation with panicle length and biological yield per plant at phenotypic and
genotypic level. Path coefficient analysis of different characters contributing

towards grain yield per plant revealed that paddy length had the highest positive
direct relationship with grain yield per plant followed by paddy breadth, biological
yield per plant and effective tillers per plant.
Bisne et al. (2006) revealed the positive direct effect of characters number
of spikelets per panicle, harvest index and 100-grain weight on grain yield.
Harvest index and 100-grain weight recorded high positive correlation with
significant positive direct effect on grain yield.
Manonmani and Ranganathan (2006) reported that number of productive
tillers plant-1 had high positive direct effect on yield followed by days to 50 per
cent flowering, plant height, grains panicle-1 and 100-grain weight. Days to 50 per
cent flowering had positive indirect effect on yield through plant height. Number
of grains panicle-1 also contributed indirect positive effect on yield through days to
flowering, plant height and number of productive tillers. 100-grain weight
contributed equally through direct and indirect effects.
Anurag et al. (2006) studied path coefficients values in respect of ten
quantitative traits for 47 rice genotypes. In path coefficient analysis, panicles per
plant exhibited maximum positive direct effect on grain yield per plant .Other
characters with positive direct effects were days to 50% flowering, panicle length.
Negative direct effect was found in plants height and tillers per plant.
Panwar and Ali (2007) reported that grain yield per panicle had the highest
direct effect on grain yield per plant followed by harvest index; biological yield
per plant and productive tillers per plant suggesting that the improvement in grain
yield could be efficient, if the selection is based on these component characters.

CHAPTER III
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The present investigation “Effect of Drought Tolerant QTL for Yield
and Yield Parameters under Managed Water Stress as Well as Non Stress
Condition” was conducted during Kharif 2010 at Instructional cum Research
Farm of, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India.
Location and climate:
Raipur is situated in the central part of Chhattisgarh at 21016‟‟ N latitude
and 81036‟‟ E longitude with an altitude of 289.56 meters above mean sea level.
The climatic condition of Raipur is hot and sub-humid type.
The details of materials used and the methodologies applied in the
investigation are described below:
Experimental details:
The experimental material for the present investigation comprised 77 lines
derived from Nagina 22/ Swarna cross including checks (MTU-1010, IR-36, N-22,
Swarna & IR-64) the experimental material was received from IRRI through
CRRI, Cuttack. The details of these lines are presented in table 3.1.
Appendix II: List of genotype
EN0 DESIGNATION QTL information EN0 DESIGNATION QTL information

1 IR 86931-B-6 with QTL DTY3.2 39 IR 86931-B-323 with QTL DTY1.1
2 IR 86931-B-9 with QTL DTY3.2 40 IR 86931-B-326 without any QTL
& 3.2
5 IR 86931-B-36 without any QTL 43 IR 86931-B-347 with QTL DTY1.1 & 3.2
6 IR 86931-B-40 without any QTL 44 IR 86931-B-365 with QTL DTY3.2
8 IR 86931-B-55 with QTL DTY1.1 46 IR 86931-B-373 with QTL DTY1.1 & 3.2
& 3.2
& 3.2
22 IR 86931-B-152 without any QTL 60 IR 86931-B-519 with QTL DTY1.1 & 3.2
& 3.2
30 IR 86931-B-194 without any QTL 68 IR 86931-B-559 without any QTL
& 3.2
34 IR 86931-B-263 without any QTL 72 IR 86931-B-578 without any QTL
35 IR 86931-B-279 with QTL DTY1.1 73 N22 Check
& 3.2
36 IR 86931-B-294 with QTL DTY1.1 74 Swarna Check
& 3.2
37 IR 86931-B-301 with QTL DTY1.1 75 IR 64 Check
38 IR 86931-B-311 without any QTL 76 IR 36 Check
77 MTU 1010 Check
3.2 Methods
3.2.1 Field Studies
The lines derived from a cross between Nagina 22/ Swarna rice cultivar
were evaluated in the field during wet season 2010 at research farm of IGKV,
Raipur. The field trials were conducted under terminal stage drought (TSD) and
irrigated control conditions. The fields selected for the study were upland in
topology with good drainage and percolation rate and had sandy loam soil. Seeds
were sown in nursery on 15/07/2010 and 01/07/2010 for TSD and irrigated
conditions respectively. Under TSD each genotype was sown in two rows of 3.4
m. length, while under irrigated condition two rows of 2 m. length with spacing of
20 cm between rows. All the genotypes were replicated twice in RCBD design
(Plate I). All normal packages of practices were followed to raise a good crop. The
total rainfall during crop cycle wet season 2010 was 1065 mm. 86% of the rainfall
was received during vegetative phase and 13% rainfall at reproductive phase
which are sown in fig. 3.1.

Fig 3.1: Distribution of rainfall during wet season 2010
Observations:
Observation recorded under field conditions are described below:-
Days to 50% flowering:-
The time taken (days) from sowing to flowering period was recorded
on plot basis by visual means.
Plant height:-
Plant height was measured in centimeter (cm) from soil surface to tip of
the tallest panicle at maturity.
Panicle length:-
Single panicle length of 3 randomly selected plants was measured in
centimeters from base to tip of panicle and was averaged.
Flag leaf length:-
Flag leaf length of 3 randomly selected plants was recorded by
measuring the length (cm) from nod to tip of flag leaf and was averaged.
Flag leaf width:-

Flag leaf width (cm) was recorded by measuring the leaf width at the
central part of the leaf.
Flag leaf Area
It is the product of Flag leaf Length and Flag leaf Width
Grain length
The length of randomly selected twenty spikelets was measured in
terms of millimeters.
Grain Breadth
The breadth of randomly selected twenty spikelets was measured in
terms of millimeters.
Grain L: B ratio
The length/breadth ratio of randomly selected ten spikelets was
calculated by dividing respective length with breadth.
100 seed weight:-
Test weigh was recorded for 100 grains of each line in grams.
Harvest index:-
Harvest index was worked out by using the formula as given below:
Harvest index = (Grain yield/ Biological yield) *100
Biological yield:-
The biological yield was recorded as actual weight in gram of total
biomass of shoot portion per plot and later converted to g/ m2 for further
analysis.
Grain yield:-
The actual yield of grain in gram per line was recorded and later
converted to g/ m2 for further analysis.
Statistical analysis:-
The data recorded on all the traits related to yield and yield
contributing characters in both the season were statistically analyzed for
variance.
Analysis of variance:-
The mean data of each replication was used for analysis of variance using
RCBD design. The mean data were subjected to variance analysis and test of
significance as per the method of Fisher (1935).
Parameters of variation:
Mean
Mean is the average value of observation of genotypes of a series. It
represents the standard average value over fluctuation in the environment. Mean
was calculated by the following formula:
X = ∑Xi / n
Where,
∑Xi = Summation of all the observations
n = Total number of observations
Range:-
Range is the difference between the highest and the lowest value of a series
of observations and thus provides the information about the extent of variability
present in the genotypes.
Range = Highest value - Lowest value
Genetic Analysis:-
Variability:-
Genotypic coefficient of variation (GCV) and phenotypic coefficient of
variation (PCV) were calculated by the method suggested by Burton (1952). The
estimates of PCV and GCV were classified as low, moderate and high according to
Sivasubramanian and Madhavamenon (1973).
< 10 per cent = Low
10 – 20 per cent = Moderate
> 20 per cent = High
Heritability (broad sense):-
It is the ratio of genotypic variance to the phenotypic variance (total
variance). Heritability for the present study was calculated in a broad sense by
adopting the formula as suggested by Hanson et al. (1956). The estimates of
heritability broad sense were classified as low, moderate and high according to
Lafitte et al. (2004).
0.2 – Low
0.6 – Moderate
0.9 – High
Genetic advance:-
Improvement in the mean genotypic value of selected plants over the
parental population is known as genetic advance. Expected genetic advance (GA)
was calculated by the method suggested by Johnson et al. (1955)
Genetic advance as percentage of mean:-
It was calculated by the following formula:
GA as percentage of mean = (Genetic Advance/ General mean) x 100
GA was categorized as:
Range Category
< 10 per cent Low
10 - 20 per cent Moderate
> 20 per cent High
Correlation Coefficient:-
Correlation coefficient (r) was calculated for grain yield and yield
contributing characters by using the standard procedure given by Searle (1961).
Path analysis
Path analysis was originally developed by Wright (1921) and first used for
plant selection by Dewey and Lu (1959). It measures the direct and indirect
contribution of independent variables on dependent variable.

The results of path coefficient analysis are interpreted as per the following
scale suggested by Lenka and Mishra (1973).
Value of direct and indirect effects Rate/ Scale
0.00 to 0.09 Negligible
0.10 to 0.19 Low
0.20 to 0.29 Moderate
0.30 to 0.99 High
>1.00 Very High

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The present investigation entitled “Effect of drought tolerant QTLs on
yield and yield contributing traits under managed water stress as well as non
-stress conditions” was carried out with the main objectives of genetic analysis
and to understand the effect of drought tolerant QTLs on yield under stress as
well as non stress conditions. The 77 lines with and without QTLs along with
checks were phenotype under two set of environmental conditions, one under
irrigated condition and another under terminal stage drought condition during wet
season 2010. The mean data of irrigated and TSD condition were used for genetic
analysis. The results, thus obtained are presented under following headings:
4.2 Variability
4.2.2 Drought Susceptibility Index
4.2.4 Genotypic and phenotypic coefficient of variation
4.3. Correlation Studies
4.4 Path Analysis
4.5 Effect of QTL for Yield and yield contributing traits

Overall, during the crop season total rainfall of 1065 mm. was received,
The erratic rainfall along with management of field (including selection of fields
with light textured soil high in topology, good drainage and agronomic
adjustment) has resulted in substantial imposition of stress. The drought intensity
index for this trial during wet season was 0.732 which indicate imposition of very
high level of water stress. In most breeding programme screening for drought
tolerances fail to impose a sufficiently sever stress in their trials and this are not
able to accurately predict drought tolerant line (Kumar et al. 2008)
4.2 Variability
The experimental material for the present investigation comprised 77 lines
derived from Nagina 22/ Swarna cross including checks (MTU-1010, IR-36, N-22,
Swarna & IR-64) all the genotypes were evaluated in wet season 2010 for various
phonological, agronomical and physiological traits. The data on various characters
were recorded either on five plants basis or on plot basis. The mean of five plants
or plot data of each replication was subjected to Randomized Complete Block
Design (RCBD) analysis. The results of RCBD analysis under Irrigated and TSD
condition of wet season 2010 is presented in table 4.1. Significant variation was
noticed among the 77 lines for grain yield and yield contributing traits under
rainfed as well as TSD situation. These results were in agreement with the results
of Singh et al. (1984) and Monalisa et al. (2006) as they have also reported lots of
genetic variability for these traits.
4.2.2 Drought Susceptibility Index (DSI)

The mean data of grain yield of individual lines for both conditions
separately and Drought Susceptibility Index of the population were statistically
analyzed. The results of this analysis are presented in table 4.2.
A perusal of Drought Susceptibility Index data indicated highest value for
check genotype Swarna. this variety had grain yield of 211.1 g/m2 under irrigated
condition while it produced 10.0 g/m2 under stress condition exhibiting severe
reduction in yield which is indicated by high DSI value. This genotype is known to
be susceptible.
The lower value for Drought susceptibility index was observed for IR
86931-B-347 (-0.07) and IR 86931-B-456 (-0.07) which indicates low or virtually
no reduction in yield under stress condition compared to irrigated condition.
However, these two genotype also yielded substantially low under irrigated
condition as well, therefore the drought susceptibility index value for these
genotype is mis-leading, however, these were number of lines with grain yield
more than overall average under irrigated condition and low drought susceptibility
index indicating tolerance to water stress.
The mean data of individual lines of the population were statistically
analyzed to generate overall mean and other parameters. The results of this
analysis are presented in table 4.3.
Grain yield under irrigated condition ranged from 122.20 to 1022.20 g/ m2
with population mean of 432.02 g/ m2, while under TSD condition it ranges from
10.00 to 173.35 g/ m2 with a mean of 115.53 g/ m2 which indicates marked
differences among the 77 genotype population for grain yield under stress
condition, which indirectly indicates the lines have ability to cope with water
stress. The mean reduction in grain yield of population due to TSD over Irrigated
condition was 81.35%, indicating very high stress levels. Such high stress levels
were desirable because a high percentage reduction of yield is necessary to remove
the effect of yield potential and clearly identify lines that are drought resistance
(Babu et al., 2003; Lafitte et al., 2006). Similar results of reduction in yield were
reported by Lanceras et al. (2004).
Days to 50% flowering of 77 genotypes under irrigated condition ranged
from 71 to 97 days with mean of 83 days while under TSD condition it ranged
from 67 to 92 days with mean of 78 days. The standard deviations were
comparable over the season. Under same temperature condition it was reported to
increased days to 50% flowering under drought condition .While in this
experiment flowering was not delayed, it was mainly due to delayed planting
(most of the rice genotypes are at least partially photo and thermo sensitive) and
water stress was imposed at the time of reproductive phase. Usually vegetative
stage drought result is delay in flowering
Biomass production (biological yield) of 77 genotype population under
irrigated condition ranged from 789 to 3322 g/ m2 with mean of 1928.85 g/ m2,
while under TSD condition it ranged from 133 to 566.65 g/ m2 with mean of
416.75 g/ m2. The mean and range is higher in irrigated compare to TSD
Condition.
There was marked difference in population means for plant height of TSD
and Irrigated. Plant height of 77 lines under irrigated condition ranged from 79.65
cm to 176 cm with mean of 144.83 cm, while under TSD condition it ranged from
75.65cm to 150.80 cm with mean of 123.90 cm.
100 Grains weight of 77 lines under irrigated condition ranged from 1.62 g
to 2.60 g with mean of 2.17 g, while under TSD condition it ranged from 1.49 g to
2.54 g with mean of 2.07 this was mainly because of shriveled grain production
under stress.
Harvest index (HI) of 77 lines under irrigated condition ranged from 10.98
to 43.32 with mean of 22.12, while under TSD condition it ranged from 3.00 to
39.20 with mean of 27.82
Panicle length of 77 lines under irrigated condition ranged from 20.50 cm
to 29.20 cm with mean of 25.31 cm, while under TSD condition it ranged from
17.20 cm to 28.85cm with mean of 23.81 cm.
Flag leaf length of 77 lines under irrigated condition ranged from 27.05
cm to 49.00 cm with mean of 36.59 cm, while under TSD it ranged from 28.05 cm
to 55.00 cm with mean of 41.61 cm.
Flag leaf width of 77 lines under irrigated condition ranged from 1.10 cm
to 1.70 cm with mean of 1.37 cm, while under TSD condition it ranged from 0.85
cm to 1.65cm with mean of 1.23 cm.
Flag leaf length: width ratio of 77 lines under Irrigated condition ranged
from 25.70cm to 45.25cm with mean of 35.12cm. While under TSD it ranged from
23.35cm to 51.45cm with mean of 35.70cm.

Grain length of 77 lines under irrigated condition ranged from 7.43mm. to
10.03 mm. with mean of 83.34 mm, while under TSD condition it ranged from
6.68 mm to 9.93 mm with mean of 8.14 mm.
Grain breadth of 77 lines under irrigated condition ranged from 1.95 mm to
3.15 mm. with mean of 2.69 mm, while under TSD condition it ranged from 2.05
mm. to 3.10 mm. with mean of 2.73 mm.
Grain L: B ratio of 77 lines under Irrigated condition ranged 2.12 mm to
4.01mm with mean of 3.12 mm. while under TSD it ranged 2.51 mm to 3.77 mm
with mean of 3.00 mm.
Flag leaf length, flag leaf width, grain length, grain width, grain L: B ratio,
panicle length and 100 grain weight of population means did not exhibited much
difference across the moistures regime.
4.2.4 Genotypic and phenotypic coefficient of variation
To develop a high yielding genotypes coupled with drought tolerance,
populations showing high variability serves prime source for effective selection. In
the present investigation high phenotypic and genotypic coefficient of variation
was obtained for most of the traits (Table 4.3).
Panicle length, 50% flowering, grain length, grain breadth and Grain L: B
ratio showed low GCV and PCV under both Irrigated and TSD condition. Low
value of GCV for Grain width, Grain length and Grain L: B ratio is not similar to
Husain et al. (1987).

Plant height and flag leaf length, showed moderate GCV and PCV under
both Irrigated and TSD condition. Similar result of GCV and PCV is also reported
by Umadevi et al. (2009).
Grain yield, showed high GCV and PCV under both Irrigated and TSD
condition. Biological yield, show moderate GCV and high PCV under TSD
condition and high GCV and PCV under Irrigated condition. While harvest index
show high GCV and PCV under both condition.
GCV and PCV for grain yield under irrigated condition were 39.31% and
46.94 % while under TSD condition it was 25.77 % and 29.49 %, respectively.
GCV and PCV values under individual set of environmental condition indicate that
influence of environment on the expression of character is low. Due to high GCV
and PCV selection of character will be rewarded.
Days to 50% flowering showed fairly consistent but low estimates of GCV
and PCV, 5.61 and 5.63 respectively under Irrigated condition and 5.25 and 5.42
respectively under TSD condition, across the moisture regime. Similar finding
were also reported by Singh et al. (1999) and Monalisa et al. (2006).
Biological yield showed fairly higher values of GCV and PCV 24.61 and
30.99 respectively under Irrigated condition and 16.83 and 19.58 respectively
under TSD condition. Comparable GCV and PCV were observed for harvest index
24.61 and 31.44 respectively under Irrigated and 19.11 and 23.79 respectively
under TSD condition, across the environmental conditions. Similar estimates of
variations for most of the traits were also reported by Singh et al. (1999).
All the characters showed little difference between PCV and GCV which
indicate that traits were lesser influence by environment. All the characters showed
high PCV than GCV and it was also reported by Umadevi et al. (2009).
Heritability and genetic advance are important selection parameter.
Heritability estimates along with genetic advance are more useful in predicting the
gain under selection then the heritability alone. Table 4.3 shows the heritability
and genetic advance of yield and yield contributing traits. When heritability and
genetic advance are high than selection is effective due to additive gene effect and
when both are low than selection is not effective due to non additive gene effect.
Grain yield under irrigated condition showed medium heritability 0.70
coupled with high genetic advance as percentage of mean 67.82, while under TSD
condition high heritability was 0.76 with genetic advance as percentage of mean
was 46.39. Similar results of medium heritability for Grain yield was observed in
numerous studies under drought condition (Babu et al., 2003; Yue et al., 2005;
Venuprasad et al., 2007, 2008; Kumar et al., 2008; Bernier et al., 2009a; Verulkar
et al., 2010). Moderate to high heritability for Grain yield under drought stress
indicated selection for yield under drought stress is repeatable and support direct
selection for yield rather than secondary traits related to drought tolerance.
Further highest genetic advance as percentage of mean indicated the
presence of additive gene action and selection will be rewarding for Grain yield.
Biological yield and Harvest index showed moderate heritability 0.63, and 0.61
respectively under Irrigated condition and 0.73 and 0. 64 respectively under TSD
condition accompanied with higher genetic advance as percentage of mean 40.25

and 39.69 respectively under irrigated condition and, 29.78 and 31.63 respectively
under TSD condition, indicating selection of these characters can also be used as
criteria for selection of genotypes with higher yield. A similar result of
comparatively lower heritability under Irrigated condition was reported to observe
by Babu et al. (2003).
Heritability of 0.63 and 0.73 coupled with 40.25 and 29.78 genetic
advances as percentage of mean was observed for Biological yield under Irrigated
and TSD condition respectively. This result also showed that Biological yield can
be included in the criteria of selection for Grain yield under drought condition.
Similar estimates of high heritability coupled with genetic advance were reported
by Gomez and Kalamani (2003) and Bernier et al. (2007).
Days to 50% flowering and plant height showed higher heritability 0.99
and 0.72, respectively under irrigated condition and 0.93 and 0.83, respectively
under TSD condition with medium genetic advance as percentage of mean, 11.51
and 25.20, respectively under irrigated and 10.51 and 23.49, respectively under
TSD condition which indicate that selection based on these characters will not be
rewarding due to non additive gene action. The high heritability is being exhibited
due to favorable influence of environment rather than genotype and selection for
such trait may not be rewarded. Similar results were found by Umadevi et al.
(2009).
Plant height showed high heritability (0.83), accompanied with high
genetic advance as percentage of mean (23.47) under TSD condition. Heritability

and genetic advance as percentage of mean was not comparable under Irrigated
condition (0.72 and 25.20 respectively) for Plant height.
Days to 50% flowering showed high heritability (0.99) coupled with
moderate GA as percentage of mean (11.51) under Irrigated condition, while
under TSD condition it showed 0.93 h2 and 10.51 genetic advances as percentage
of mean, indicating selection based on higher days to 50% flowering is not
rewarding. A similar finding of result was revealed by Gomez and Kalamani
(2003). Higher heritability for 50% flowering and Plant height is also reported by
Verulkar et al. (2010).
High heritability (0.99, 0.72and 0.63) and moderate genetic advance as
percent of mean (11.51, 25.20 and 40.25) showed for days 50% flowering was
recorded in Plant height and biological yield respectively under Irrigated
condition and these traits showed also high values of heritability and moderate
genetic advance as percentage of mean under TSD condition.
4.3 Correlation Studies
Grain yield of plant is not unitary character but is influenced by a number
of components characters and environment either directly or in directly.
Contribution of each character towards increase in yield varies from crop to crop.
Correlation coefficient is therefore used to measure the mutual relationship
between various plant characters and to determine the component characters, on
which selection can be based for genetic improvement in the yield.

The mean data for each character under two different sets of condition
were first classified into group depending on presence or absence of different DT
QTLs within group the data was analyzed for correlation among different traits.
4.3.1 Correlation among variable in QTL DTY 1.1 lines
The character Days to 50% flowering showed positive correlation under
TSD condition and negative correlation with yield under irrigated condition (Table
4.4).
Plant height showed negative and significant correlation with Harvest
index under TSD and irrigated condition respectively and with biological yield
they showed negative correlation under TSD & irrigated condition.
Panicle length showed negative and significant correlation with harvest
index and with grain yield it show positive correlation under irrigated condition
Flag leaf length showed positive & highly significant and significant
correlation with Flag leaf area under irrigated and TSD condition respectively and
it also show positive and significantly correlated with biological yield under
irrigated condition it showed negative correlation in TSD and positive correlation
in irrigated condition with grain yield
Highly significant positive correlation of Flag leaf width was observed
with Flag leaf area under TSD condition while in irrigated condition it showed
positively significant correlation. Flag leaf area showed positive correlation with
grain yield under both condition but non significant.

The attribute biological yield showed positive and highly significant
correlation with grain yield under irrigated while in TSD condition they showed
positive correlation but non significant
Harvest index is showing highly significant and positive correlation with
Grain yield under both TSD & irrigated condition means grain yield increase % of
Harvest index.
Grain length is showing positive and highly significant correlation with
length width ratio of grain under irrigated condition.
4.3.2 Correlation among variable in DTY 1.1 & 3.2 lines
Under correlation coefficient in QTL DTY 1.1&3.2 lines some attributes
showed positive and significant correlation and some attribute showed significant
but negative correlation with other different traits (Table 4.5).
Days to 50% showed positive correlation with grain yield under both
condition but non significant
Plant height showed positive and significant correlation with flag leaf
length but negative & significant correlation with Grain Length and length-width
ratio of grain under TSD condition. While in irrigated condition they express
negative significant correlation with harvest index. There for falling both condition
viz. quality in term of Grain length quantity in terms of Harvest index one should
prefer dwarf plant Days to 50% flowering and panicle length showed non
significant correlate under the both condition with growth yield revealing that long
pedicure are produced in late duration variety which enhances yield. Flag leaf
length showed positive & significant correlation with Flag leaf area under the both
TSD & Irrigated condition. And FLW showed positive significant correlation
under TSD condition and positively high correlated under irrigated condition with
flag leaf area
Biological yield expressed highly significant and positive correlation with
grain yield under the both TSD and irrigated condition, this reveal that irrespective
of condition the Biological yield enhances by along with it grain yield showed
positive highly significant correlation in TSD condition and positive significant
correlation in irrigated condition with character harvest index.
Harvest index showed positive significant correlation with seed index
under the irrigated condition and Grain length showed highly significant positive
correlation with length width ratio of grain under the irrigated condition only.
Grain width showed negative significant correlation with grain L: B ratio
of under the both condition. In QTL DTY 1.1&3.2 lines maximum character
4.3.3 Correlation among variable in with QTL DTY 3.2 lines
Under the correlation coefficient study among QTL DTY 3.2 lines it was
found that total eleven attributes were significantly positively correlated while
other attributes including to negative traits viz. namely Days to 50% flowering in
TSD condition (Table 4.6).
Plant height showed positive significant correlated with biological yield
under TSD condition and it also express positive correlation with grain yield under
TSD condition.
This had shown that increase in the height of the plant is associated with
increase in biological yield & grain yield.
Flag leaf length expressed highly significant positive correlation with Flag
leaf area under both TSD and irrigated condition.

Significant and positive correlation observe of Flag leaf area with Flag leaf
width under irrigated and TSD condition Flag leaf area being dependent character
shows such relationship with Flag leaf length& Flag leaf width.
Harvest index is showing highly significant and positive correlations with
biological yield under both irrigated and TSD condition
Biological yield is showing highly significant and positive correlations
with grain yield under both irrigated and TSD condition. Grain yield expressed
highly significant and positive correlation with harvest index under the both
irrigated and TSD condition.
This indicates that increase in the biological yield result in increasing the
grain yield which ultimately enhances Harvest index.
.Grain length showed highly significant and positive correlation with
length width ratio of grain under both condition while with 100 seed weight it
showed highly significant and positive correlation under TSD condition. This
reveals that increase in the Grain length increases the Seed index. Grain breadth is
showing positive & significant with 100 seed weight under TSD condition in QTL
DTY 3.2 lined maximum significant and positive relation is been seen under TSD
condition.
4.3.4 Correlation among variables in without QTL lines
Plant height is showing positive & significant correlation with panicle
length and flag leaf length under irrigated condition and observed positive
correlation with grain yield under both TSD & irrigated condition but non
significant (Table 4.7).

Highly significant and positive correlation with Flag leaf length is observed
with Flag leaf area under both TSD and irrigated condition.
Flag leaf area recorded highly significantly and positive correlation with
Flag leaf width under both TSD and irrigated condition.
Attributes Biological yield is showing highly significant and positive
correlation with grain yield under the both TSD & irrigated condition.
Grain yield expressed positive and highly significant correlation with
harvest index under irrigated condition while positive and significant correlation in
TSD condition.
Grain length showed highly significance and positive correlation with 100
seed weight under the both TSD and irrigated condition while it showed highly
significant and positive correlation with length width ratio of grain under TSD
condition.
Grain width is showing highly significant but negative correlated with L:B
ratio of grain under the both condition maximum character showed negative
correlated with grain yield under the only TSD condition
4.3.5 Correlation among variable in check lines
In correlation study under the check lines show less number of significant
and positive correlation and few characters show negative significant correlation
(Table 4.8).
Days to 50 % flowering is showing significant negative correlation with
Grain yield and harvest index correlation with while in irrigated condition it
showed significant negative correlation with plant height. Panicle length showed
negative but significant correlation with grain yield under TSD condition.
Harvest index expressed positive significant correlation with Grain yield under
irrigated and TSD condition.
Most of the character showed positive correlation with grain yield under
the both condition but non-significant.
The result of correlation coefficient among different traits (for all lines
carrying DT QTL 1.1) is presented in tables .A perusal of this table indicate
highly positive and significant correlation between grain yield with Harvest index
and biological yield under both irrigated as well as terminal stage drought
condition these result are in agreement to the finding of Tomar et al. (2000),
Iftekharuddaula et al. (2002), Mishra and Verma (2002), Bisne et al. (2006),
Johnson et al. (2007) for the character Harvest Index for the all the clusters under
both conditions; Tomar et al. (2000), Mishra and Verma (2002) and Johnson et al.
(2007) for the character Biological yield for all the clusters under both conditions.
These results clearly indicate that for both the condition increase in grain yield can
be achieved if selection is made for biological yield and harvest index. Almost
similar result were obtained for correlation among trait carrying different DT
QTLs which to same extent indicate that trait correlation are not significantly
affected by presence or absence of different DT QTLs.
The result obtained for correlation with yield is in accordance with Nayak
et al. (2001), Rajmani et al.(2004), Patil and Sarawagi (2005), Johnson et al.
(2007) for character Plant height for the cluster without QTL and Check lines
under both condition, cluster QTL DTY 3.2 under TSD condition; Tomar et al.
(2000), Rajmani et al. (2004), Souroush et al. (2004) and Patil and Sarawagi
(2005) for the character Days to 50 % flowering for the cluster 1.1 and 3.2 under
both condition for cluster QTL DTY 1.1 and QTL DTY 3.2 under TSD and
Irrigated condition respectively; Tomar et al. (2000), Nayak et al. (2001), Rajmani
et al. (2004) and Johnson et al. (20007) for the character Panicle length for the
cluster QTL DTY 3.2, QTL DTY 1.1 and 3.2 under both condition; QTL DTY 1.1,
Without QTL lines and Checks under Irrigated condition; Iftekharuddaula et al.
(2002), Rajmani et al. (2004), Souroush et al. (2004)and Bisne et al. (2006) for the
character Seed Index for all the clusters under both conditions.
4.4 Path analysis
The path analysis in the study was undertaken mainly to understand the
change in direct and indirect effect of different traits by the presence/absence of
different DT QTLs.
The correlation coefficient of yield with important field and quality
characters were partitioned into direct and indirect effects taking yield per plant as
dependent variable. The selection of a genotype is based on the study of various
characters contributing towards yield of a crop plant. The yield being quantitative
trait is dependent on the various direct and indirect added by the traits. The
selection of the traits contributing directly to the yield will be beneficial for the
breeder in changing the genetic architect of the crop plant for promoting the yield
potential of the crop. Path analysis is the effective statistical tool to determine the
direct and indirect contributions of different characters towards yield. Path

coefficient is a standardized partial regression coefficient which separates the
correlation coefficient into its components of direct and indirect effects. Thus it
helps in examining the relative contribution of both the direct and indirect effects
of independent variables on dependent variable. This technique was originally
developed by Wright (1921) and was used for the first time in plants by Dewey
and Lu (1959).
4.4.1 Path analysis in QTL DTY 1.1 lines
The correlation coefficient of various characters for lines QTL DTY 1.1
was spliced into direct and indirect effects for environment (Table 4.9).
Among the characters, harvest index (1.254,0.811) followed biological
yield (0.844, 0.701) and panicle length(0.035, 0.033) were found to exert positive
direct effect while days to 50% flowering (-0.021, -0.032), plant height(-0.011, -
0.026) were found to negative direct effect and grain length (0.174, -0.338), flag
leaf length(0.211, -0.411), flag leaf width (0.230, -0.433) and grain breadth (-
0.273, 0.251), Grain L:B ratio (-0.395, 0.356), Flag leaf area (-0.274, 0.493) and
Seed index (-0.040, 0.022) showed vice-versa effect for both condition.
The breeder should go for direct selection of the plant height (-0.011, -
0.026), flag leaf width (0.230, -0.433), grain breadth (-0.273, 0.251), harvest index
(1.254, 0.811) and biological yield (0.844, 0.701) as it exhibited direct positive
effect with yield under both conditions.
Beside these the breeder can also go for selection of character days to 50%
flowering (-0.021, -0.032), panicle length (0.035, 0.033) flag leaf area (-0.274,
0.493) grain length width ratio (-0.395, 0.356) and seed index under irrigated
condition.
On the contrary, direct effect and correlation under one condition shows
vice-versa relationship for other condition i.e. days to 50% flowering (-0.021, -
0.032), panicle length (0.035, 0.033), flag leaf area (-0.274, 0.493) grain length
breadth ratio (-0.395, 0.356) and seed index (-0.040, 0.022) for TSD condition.
Thus, in such cases, one showed consider only those indirect affecting characters
which enhance the value of correlation coefficient which ultimately enhances
yield.
4.4.2 Path analysis in QTL DTY 1.1 & 3.2 lines
Among the characters Biological yield (0.506, 0.887), Harvest index
(0.753, 0.604) and flag leaf length (0.089, 0.091) were found to exert positive
direct effect and Days to 50% flowering (-0.001, -0.051) plant height (-0.056, -
0.044), panicle length (-0.018, -0.049) were found to import negative direct effect
and flag leaf width (0.114, -0.008), grain width (0.315, -0.791) grain L:B ratio
(0.372, -1.731) seed index (0.001,-0.020) and flag leaf area (-0.124,0.012) & grain
length –(0.383, 1.451) showed vice-versa effect, under both conditions (Table
4.10).
Among them breeder should go for direct selection of the traits biological
yield (0.506, 0.887), harvest index (0.753, 0.604), plant height, (-0.056, -0.044)
and Flag leaf length (0.089, 0.091) as the kind of direct effects exerted by them is
also seen in there correlation coefficient with yield for both condition.
Beside those the breeder can also go for direct selection of characters like
flag leaf width (0.114, -0.008), grain weight (0.315,-0.791) and seed index (0.001,
-0.020) keeping in view of their association with yield. under TSD condition while
grain length (-0.383, 1.45) under irrigated condition.

However, the flag leaf width (0.114, -0.008), grain weight (0.315,-0.791)
and seed index (0.001, -0.020) were found to have opposite relationship between
correlation and their direct effect under irrigated condition, grain length (-0.383,
1.45) under TSD condition.
Beside these the character days to 50% flowering, (-0.001, -0.051) panicle
length (-0.018, -0.049), flag leaf area (-0.124, 0.012) and grain L: B ratio (0.372, -
1.731) showed vice-versa relationship between direct effect and correlation
coefficient for yield.
Thus in QTL, DTY 1.1 & 3.2 lines consider only those indirectly affecting
characters which enhances the value of correlation which ultimately enhances
yield.
4.4.3 Path analysis in QTL DTY 3.2 lines
Path analysis of different characters contributing towards yield revealed
that flag leaf length (0.251, 0.215), flag leaf width (0.241, 0.174), grain length
(0.133, 0.383) biological yield (0.735, 0.559,) and harvest index (0.712, 0.673)
showed positive direct effects while the characters Flag leaf area (-0.343, -0.305)
grain width (-0.153, -0.036) Grain L:B ratio (-0.201, -0.523) showed negative
direct effect in both conditions. The remaining characters vice versa effect on
either of the conditions viz. TSD and irrigated conditions (Table 4.11).
Among the positive direct effects high effect was show by biological yield
per plant (0.735, 0.559) followed to harvest Index (0.712, 0.673.) and grain length
(0.133, 0.383) the character biological yield (0.735, 0.559,) was found to be highly
significant in both the conditions with yield. Harvest Index also showed positive
correlation with grain yield hence during selection course the characters should be
given emphasis and the breeder should go for direct selection of these traits for
improving the yielding potential. The character grain length (0.133, 0.383) can
also be given due emphasis for direct as the association with grain yield is found
positive in both the condition.
Beside those the we can also go for direct selection of characters like
panicle length (0.026, -0.041), flag leaf length (0.251, 0.215), flag leaf area (-
0.343, -0.305), grain L: B ratio (-0.201, -0.523), grain weight (0.315,-0.791) and
seed index (0.001, -0.020) keeping in view of their association with grain yield.
4.4.4 Path analysis in without QTL lines
In without QTL lines correlation coefficients of various characters were
spliced out into direct and indirect affects both the condition (Table 4.12). Some
character exert positive direct effect like plant height (0.044, 0.003), flag leaf area
(0.068, 0.300), grain breadth (0.112, 0.208), grain L:B ratio (0.125, 0.236),
biological yield (0.820, 0.628) and harvest index (0.795, 0.562) while some exert
negative direct effect like days to 50% flowering ( -0.002, -0.067) flag leaf length
(-0.129, -0.268) flag leaf width (-0.056, -0.197) grain length (-0.071, -0.054)
and Seed index (-0.023, -0.051), while vice- versa effect were exhibited by
character panicle length ( 0.011, -0.027).
This indicates that direct selection of traits plant height (0.044, 0.003)
biological yield (0.820, 0.628), harvest index (0.795, 0.562) grain breadth (0.112,
0.208) days to 50% flowering (-0.002, -0.067), flag leaf length (-0.129, -0.268)
should be given more emphasis as the exert direct effect with yield under both
condition.
Beside these the character, Panicle length, Grain length, grain L:B ratio and
Seed index showed vice-versa relationship between direct effect and correlation
coefficient for yield. Hence, one should go for selection of such trait via desirable
indirect effects.
Overall the presence/absence of DT QTLs has changed the direct and
indirect effect of different characters to some extent, but the overall sscenario
remains same. Biological yield had significant direct effect and exhibited positive
correlation with grain yield under both the conditions, then in selection this
character should be given due importance.
The above findings for all the clusters for path analysis was in accordance
with finding of Chakraborty et al. (2001), Khedikar et al. (2004), Bisne et al.
(2006)and Manomani and Ranganath (2006) for character Seed Index for the
cluster QTL DTY 1.1, QTL DTY 1.1 and QTL DTY 3.2 under Irrigated condition
and QTL DTY 1.1 and 3.2 and Check lines under TSD condition; Mishra and
Verma (2002), Naik et al. (2005) and Panwar and Ali (2007) for Biological yield
under both condition for all the clusters except Check lines under TSD condition;
Khedikar et al. (2004), Manomani and Ranganathan (2006) for Days to 50%
Flowering for the cluster check lines under both condition and QTL DTY 3.2 for
Irrigated condition; Naik et al. (2005) for the character Grain length under both
condition for the QTL DTY 3.2 lines, irrigated condition for the QTL DTY 1.1 and
3.2 lines and Check lines, TSD condition for the QTL DTY line 1.1; vice versa for
different clusters for the grain breadth and Manomani and Ranganathan (2006) for
without QTL DTY lines under both condition for QTL DTY 3.2 under TSD
condition.
4.5 Effect of QTL for yield and yield contributing traits:
4.5.1 Performance of QTL over non QTL for days to 50% flowering:
Under terminal stage drought condition, all the lines i.e. with QTL 1.1,
with QTL 1.1 + 3.2 and with QTL 3.2 exhibited early days to 50% flowering as
compared to the lines without QTL. The mean ranged from 76 to 78 days. Apart
from this, there was at par performance in days to 50% flowering under irrigated
condition.
Table 4.13: Mean performance and percent change in days to 50% flowering
in lines with QTL and without QTL lines under Terminal stage
drought and irrigated condition.
With QTL1.1 With QTL 1.1 With QTL 3.2 Without QTL
(18) + 3.2 (16) (19) (19)
Terminal Stage Drought condition
Mean 78 76 76 80
% change -2.10 -4.12 -4.12 -
Irrigated condition
Mean 83 83 82 84
% change -1.40 -1.59 -2.1 -
Figure in parenthesis represent the number of lines.
4.5.2 Performance of QTL over non QTL for plant height:
The mean of plant height in TSD condition ranged from 120.9 cm (without
QTL) to 130.97 cm (With QTL 1.1+3.2). The results indicated high percent
change in plant height in lines with QTL 1.1+3.2 followed by lines with QTL 1.1
and with QTL 3.2. Furthermore, in irrigated condition all the lines showed high
means for plant height. The percent change for this trait ranged from 0.59 (with
QTL 3.2) to 0.67 (with QTL 1.1) so; QTL 1.1 is responsible to increase the plant
height (Table 4.14).

Table 4.14: Mean performance and percent change in Plant height in lines
with QTL and without QTL lines under Terminal stage drought
and irrigated condition.
(18) + 3.2 (16) (19) (19)
Mean 129.32 130.97 123.47 120.9
% change 6.96 8.32 2.09 -
Irrigated condition
Mean 154.38 151.18 142.91 142.06
% change 8.67 6.42 0.598 -
4.5.3 Performance of QTL over non QTL for panicle length:
Under terminal stage drought condition, the mean of panicle length ranged
from 23.38 cm (with QTL 3.2) to 25.17 cm (with QTL 1.1). The results indicated
high percent change in panicle length in lines with QTL 1.1 followed by lines with
QTL 3.2 and lines with QTL 1.1+3.2. In irrigated condition, all the lines showed
high means for panicle length. The percent change for this trait ranged from 0.19
(with QTL 1.1+3.2) to 3.42 (with QTL 1.1) (Table 4.15).
Table 4.15: Mean performance and percent change in Panicle length in lines
(18) + 3.2 (16) (19) (19)
Mean 25.17 23.62 23.38 23.68
% change 6.47 -0.08 -1.10 -
Irrigated condition
Mean 25.98 25.17 25.24 25.12
% change 3.42 0.19 0.47
4.5.4 Performance of QTL over non QTL for flag leaf length:
The mean of flag leaf length in terminal stage drought condition ranged
from 39.27 cm (without QTL) to 46.07 cm (with QTL 1.1+3.2). The results
exhibited high percent change in flag leaf length in lines with QTL 1.1+3.2
followed by lines with QTL 1.1 and with QTL 3.2. Furthermore, in irrigated
condition, all the lines exhibited lower mean of flag leaf length of with QTL and
without QTL lines. Then percent change for this trait ranged from 0.52 (with QTL
3.2) to 7.00 (with QTL 1.1+3.2) (Table 4.16).
Table 4.16: Mean performance and percent change in Flag leaf length in lines
With QTL 1.1 With QTL 1.1 With QTL 3.2 Without QTL
(18) + 3.2 (16) (19) (19)
Mean 43.76 46.07 40.55 39.27
% change 11.43 17.31 3.25 -
Irrigated condition
Mean 37.84 38.64 36.11 35.92
% change 5.34 7.00 0.52 -
4.5.5 Performance of QTL over non QTL for flag leaf width:
The mean value for flag leaf width in TSD ranged from 1.19cm (with QTL
1.1) to 1.26 cm (with QTL 3.2). The results exhibited high percent change in flag
leaf width in lines with QTL 3.2 followed by lines with QTL 1.1. Furthermore, in
irrigated condition all the lines exhibited high means for flag leaf width. The
percent change for this trait ranged from (-) 4.31 (with QTL 1.1+3.2) to (-) 1.43
(with QTL 1.1) (Table 4.17).

Table 4.17: Mean performance and percent change in Flag leaf width in lines
With QTL 1.1 With QTL 1.1 + With QTL 3.2 Without QTL
(18) 3.2 (16) (19) (19)
Mean 1.19 1.24 1.26 1.24
% change -4.03 0.00 1.61 -
Irrigated condition
Mean 1.37 1.3 1.39 1.39
% change -1.43 -4.31 0.00 -
4.5.6 Performance of QTL over non QTL for flag leaf area:
The mean of flag leaf area in TSD condition ranged from 34.07 cm2
(without QTL) to 39.31cm2 (with QTL 1.1+3.2). In irrigated condition, all the lines
showed lower mean for flag leaf area. The results exhibited high percent change
for this trait in lines with QTL 1.1+3.2 under both the condition i.e. terminal stage
drought and irrigated (Table 4.18).
Table 4.18: Mean performance and percent change in flag leaf area in lines
(18) + 3.2 (16) (19) (19)
Mean 35.89 35.87 35.21 34.92
% change 2.72 2.71 0.83
Irrigated condition
Mean 36.21 39.31 35.55 34.07
% change 6.28 15.38 4.34 -
4.5.7 Performance of QTL over non QTL for grain length:

The mean value of grain length in TSD condition ranged from 7.92 mm
(with QTL 1.1+3.2) to 8.32 mm (with QTL 3.2). The results indicated high percent
change in grain length in lines with QTL 3.2 followed by lines with QTL 1.1+3.2
and with QTL 1.1. Apart from this, in irrigated condition all the lines showed high
mean for grain length. The percent change for this trait ranged from (-) 1.83 (with
QTL 1.1) to (-) 2.71 (with QTL 1.1+3.2) (Table 4.19).
Table 4.19: Mean performance and percent change in Grain length in lines
(18) + 3.2 (16) (19) (19)
Mean 7.97 7.92 8.32 8.12
% change -1.78 -2.46 2.52 -
Irrigated condition
Mean 8.31 8.23 8.24 8.46
% change -1.83 -2.71 -2.66 -
4.5.8 Performance of QTL over non QTL for grain width:
The mean value of grain width in TSD condition ranged from 2.66 mm
(with QTL 1.1+3.2) to 2.75 mm (with QTL 3.2). The results indicated high percent
change in grain width in lines with QTL 3.2 followed by lines with QTL 1.1+3.2
and with QTL 1.1. Apart from this, in irrigated condition lines with QTL 1.1+3.2
showed high mean for grain width. The percent change for this trait ranged from (-
) 1.28 (with QTL 1.1) to 0.73 (with QTL 1.1+3.2) (Table 4.20).
Table 4.20: Mean performance and percent change in Grain width in lines
(18) 3.2 (16) (19) (19)
Mean 2.73 2.66 2.76 2.75
% change -0.72 -3.21 0.36 -
Irrigated condition
Mean 2.69 2.75 2.72 2.73
% change -1.28 0.73 -0.36 -
4.5.9 Performance of QTL over non QTL for grain L: B ratio:
The average value of grain L: B ratio under TSD condition ranged from
2.94 (with QTL 1.1) to 3.04 (with QTL 3.2). The results indicated high percent
change in L: B ratio in lines with QTL 3.2 followed by lines with QTL 1.1+3.2 and
with QTL 1.1. Apart from this in irrigated condition all the lines exhibited high
means for grain L: B ratio. The percent change for this trait ranged from (-) 7.09
(with QTL 1.1+3.2) to (-) 4.01 (with QTL 1.1) (Table 4.21).
Table 4.21: Mean performance and percent change in grain L: B ratio in lines
(18) 3.2 (16) (19) (19)
Mean 2.94 3.00 3.04 2.98
% change -1.34 0.67 2.01 -
Irrigated condition
Mean 3.11 3.01 3.04 3.24
% change -4.01 -7.09 -6.17
Figure in parenthesis represent the number of lines
4.5.10 Performance of QTL over non QTL for seed index:
The presence and absence of QTL did not make any difference under both
the condition for seed index (Table 4.22).
Table 4.22: Mean performance and percent change in Seed Index in lines with
QTL and without QTL lines under Terminal stage drought and
irrigated condition.
(18) 3.2 (16) (19) (19)
Mean 1.95 2.04 2.16 2.11
% change -7.58 -1.89 2.37 --
Irrigated condition
Mean 2.14 2.18 2.20 2.17
% change -1.38 0.46 1.38 -
4.5.11 Performance of QTL over non QTL for harvest index:
The presence and absence of QTL did not make any difference under both
the condition for harvest index (Table 4.23).
Table 4.23: Mean performance and percent change in Harvest Index in lines
(18) 3.2 (16) (19) (19)
Mean 28.44 26.59 28.87 27.07
% change 5.06 -1.77 6.64 -
Irrigated condition
Mean 21.28 21.64 22.59 23.00
% change -7.47 -5.91 -1.78 -
4.5.12 Performance of QTL over non QTL for biological yield:
The percent change in biological yield in the lines carrying QTLs indicates
the effect of QTL and biological yield is directly and significantly associated with
grain yield therefore, the QTL imparts advantage by increasing the biological yield
which ultimately also increases grain yield, but this advantage is prominent under
stress condition. While under irrigated situation the QTL leads to increase in plant
height responsible for increase in biological yield therefore, the lines carrying QTL
usually lodges (Table 4.24).
Table 4.24: Mean performance and percent change in Biological yield in lines
(18) 3.2 (16) (19) (19)
Mean 439.81 430.21 423.69 338.87
% change 29.78 26.95 25.03 -
Irrigated condition
Mean 2090.12 1954.12 1925.74 1797.07
% change 16.30 8.74 7.16 -
4.5.13 Performance of QTL over non QTL for grain yield:
In TSD condition, the mean of grain yield varied from 103gm2 (without
QTL) to 122gm2 (with QTL 1.1 and QTL 3.2). Thus, the percent change in grain
yield also showed similar trend. As far as irrigated condition is concerned, the
grain yield showed at par performance.

This indicates clearly that presence of QTL imparts advantage to the line
only under stress condition and it has no advantage/ disadvantage under irrigated
condition. The presence of QTL in general increase plant height and therefore, the
lines with QTL under irrigated condition exhibit lodging which becomes
ultimately a disadvantage (Table 4.25).
Table 4.25: Mean performance and percent change in Grain yield in lines
with QTL and without QTL lines under terminal stage drought
(18) 3.2 (16) (19) (19)
Mean 122 116 122 103
% change 18 13 18 -
Irrigated condition
Mean 439 421 448 426
% change 3.1 -1.2 5.2 -
Quantitative trait loci (QTL) with large effects on yield under drought
stress have been detected in new populations derived from parents differing greatly
in yield under drought, using selective genotyping. In a Vandana/Way Rarem
population, a QTL on chromosome 12 (DTY12.1) explained 51% of the genetic
variance for yield under stress (Bernier et al. 2007). Another QTL on chromosome
4 (DTY4.1) affects yield under reproductive-stage stress in 1R55419-04/Way
Rarem population, where it explained over 35% of genetic variance (IRRI,
unpublished). The effect of QTL DTY12.1 has been validated in diverse
environments. However, these major QTLs showed low and variable effect in the
background of improved mega varieties, the targeted cultivars for improving
drought tolerance. Recently, two major QTLs, one each in the background of mega
varieties „Swarna‟ and „IR 64‟ have been identified. In Apo/2*Swarna F4.5
population, a major QTL (IJTY3.1) has been identified on chromosome 3 near
RM520 in the marker interval RM520-RM416. This QTL explained 31% of the
genetic variance of the trait (P<0.0001), and showed an average additive effect of
180 kg ha which accounted for 28% of the trial mean under stress (Venuprasad et
al. 2008). Similarly, in 1R77298-14-1-2/JR 64 population, another major QTL
(DTY2.1) has been identified on chromosome 2 for grain yield under reproductive
stage lowland drought stress near marker RM236. This QTL explained 77% of the
genetic variance of the trait (p<O.000I) and showed an average additive effect of
100 kg ha‟ (IRRI, unpublished). Recent work at IRRI has identified a robust QTL
for yield under drought on rice chromosome 1 (DTY1.1) which is effective across
the genetic backgrounds of 1R64, Swarna and Sambha Mahsuri and this has been
choosen for transfer into mega varieties.
The study also indicates that DT QTLs impart advantage to the line in
terms of increased grain yield under water limited environment.

CHAPTER-V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS FOR
FUTURE RESEARCH WORK
Among the abiotic stresses drought stress is a major constrain to stability in
production and yield under rainfed rice ecosystem. It acts as a serious limiting
factor in agriculture production by preventing a crop from reaching the genetically
determined theoretical maximum yield. The development of cultivars with
improved drought tolerance is thus an important element in increasing productivity
and alleviating poverty in communities depended on rainfed ecosystem. The
complex nature of drought tolerance, genotype x environment interaction, lack of
understanding of inheritance of drought tolerance, poor understanding of
physiological basis of yield under water limited condition and difficulty of
effective drought tolerance screening complicate the development of drought
tolerance varieties. Therefore, the present study was undertaken to carry out the
genetic analysis for understanding the genetics basis of drought tolerance and
identification of QTLs for yield and yield contributing traits under water stress
condition.
Seventy seven lines of drought tolerant QTL population were evaluated
under irrigated and TSD condition during wet season 2010. The experimental
material for the present investigation comprised 77 lines derived from Nagina
22/Swarna cross including checks (MTU-1010, IR-36, N-22, Swarna & IR-64).
The 77 lines were evaluated under irrigated and terminal stage drought condition
for genetic analysis and generating phenotypic data to know the effect of different
with and without QTLs lines on yield and yield contributing traits.
Conclusions
1. Presence of QTL‟s has increased the plant height.
2. Presence of QTL has resulted increased yield under stress condition and this is a
major advantage.
3. The increase in the plant height because of DT QTL‟s under irrigated condition
results in lodging of these lines which become a major disadvantage.
Suggestions for future work:
 DT QTL and plant height, this linkage needs to be broken down.

“EFFECT OF DROUGHT TOLERANT QTLs ON YIELD AND YIELD
CONTRIBUTING TRAITS UNDER MANAGED WATER STRESS AS
WELL AS NON STRESS CONDITION”
By
Manoj Kumar Narang
Abstract
The complex nature of drought tolerance, genotype x environment

interaction, lack of understanding of inheritance of drought tolerance, poor
understanding of physiological basis of yield under water limited condition and
difficulty of effective drought tolerance screening complicate the development of
drought tolerance varieties. Therefore, the present study was undertaken to carry
out the genetic analysis for understanding the genetics basis of drought tolerance
and identification of QTLs for yield and yield contributing traits under water stress
condition.
The analysis of variance indicated substantial variation among the 77 lines
for grain yield and yield contributing traits. Significant variation was noticed
among the 77 lines for grain yield and yield contributing traits under irrigated as
well as TSD situation. The mean grain yield of these lines was higher in irrigated
as compared to TSD condition, respectively, indicating very high level of stress.
The presence of QTL‟s has increased the plant height and also it has resulted
increased yield under stress condition which is a major advantage.. The increase in
the plant height because of DT QTL‟s under irrigated condition results in lodging
of these lines which become a major disadvantage. The estimates of correlation
showed highly positive and significant association between grain yield, harvest
index and biological yield under both irrigated as well as terminal stage drought
condition. The estimates of direct effect showed that biological yield had
significant direct effect and exhibited positive correlation with grain yield under
both the conditions.
The major QTLs showed low and variable effect in the background of
improved mega varieties, the targeted cultivars for improving drought tolerance.
Recently, two major QTLs, one each in the background of mega varieties „Swarna‟
and „IR 64‟ have been identified.
(Dr. S.B. Verulkar)

Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding Chairman, Advisory Committee
College of Agriculture, IGKV, Raipur
REFERENCES
Anonymous, 2009.FAO.STAT database. Food and Agricultural Organization of
the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
Anonymous, 2010. State Level Agricultural Statistics, Directorate of Agriculture,
Raipur (C.G.).
Armstrong, W., 1971 Radial oxygen losses from intract rice roots as affected by
distance from the apex, respiration. and waterlogging. Physiol. Plant.
25: 192-197
Atlin, G.N., Lafitte, R., Venuprasad, R., Kumar, R. and Jongdee, B. 2004.
Heritability of rice yield under reproductive-stage drought stress,
correlations across stress levels and effects of selection: implications
for drought tolerance breeding. In: Poland, D., Sawkins, J. M., Ribaut,
M., Hoisington, D. (Eds.), Proceedings of a Workshop Held at
Cuernavaca on Resilient Crops for Water Limited Environments,
Mexico, May 24-28. International Maize and Wheat Improvement
Center, Mexico, pp. 85-87.
Anurag, Bhandarkar, S. and Pandagare, J.M. 2006. Correlation and path analysis
in purelines of rice under rainfed condition of Bastar Plateau Zone of
Chhattisgarh. In: Lakpale, R. (ed.) Agro-Resource Conservation and
Management. IGKV, Raipur, 159 p.
Arumugam, M., Rajanna, M.P., Rao, M.P.R. and Kulkarni, R.S. 2008. Correlation
and path coefficient analysis for grain yield and yield attributing
characters under different environment in rice. Mysore J. Agric. Sci.,
42 (3): 444-449.
Babu, R.C., Nguyen, B.D., Chamarerk, V., Shanmugasundaram, P., Chezhian, P.,
Jeyaprakash, P., Ganesh, S.K., Palchamy, A., Sadasivam, S.,
Sarkarung, S., Wade, L.J. and Nguyen, H.T. 2003. Genetic analysis of
drought resistance in rice by molecular markers: Association between
secondary traits and field performance. Crop Sci., 43: 1457-1469.
Baber, M., Khan, A.A., Arif, A., Zafar, Y. and Arif, M. 2007. Path analysis of
some leaf and panicle traits affecting grain yield in double haploid
lines of rice (Oryza sativa L.). J. Agric. Res. 45(4): 245-252.
Bernier, J., Atlin, G.N., Serrraj, R., Kumar, A. and Spaner, D. 2008. Review,
Breeding upland rice for drought resistance. J. Sci. food Agric., 88:
927-939.
Bernier, J., Kumar, A., Ramiah, V., Spaner, D. and Atlin, G. 2007. A large effect
of QTL for grain yield under reproductive stage drought stress in
upland rice. Crop Sci., 47: 505-518.
Bernier, J., Kumar, A., Venuprasad, R., Spancer, D., Verulkar, S.B., Mandal, N.P.,
Sinha, P.K., Peeraju, P., Dongre, P.R., Mahto, R.N. and Atlin, G.
2009a. Characterization of the effect of a QTL for drought resistance
in rice, qtl12.1, over a range of environments in the Philippines and
Eastern India. Euphytica, 166: 207-217.
Bernier, J., Serraj, R., Kumar, A., Venuprasad, R., Impa, S., Veeresh Gowda, R.
P., Oane, R., Spaner, D. and Atlin, G. 2009b. The large-effect drought-
resistance QTL qtl12.1 increases water uptake in upland rice. Field
Crops Res., 110: 139–146.

Bhandarkar, S., Tripathi, A. K. and Sinha, S.K. 2002. Genetic variability and
correlation studies in pure lines of rice under semi deep eco system of
Surguja. Int. J. Trop. Agric., 21(1-4): 55-58.
Bisne, R., Motiramani, N.K. and Sarawgi, A.K. 2006. Association analysis and
variability analysis in rice. Mysore J. Agric. Sci., 40(3): 375-380.
Chauhan, J.S., Chauhan, V.S. and Variar, M. 1993. Genetic variation and character
association in rainfed upland rice. Oryza, 30: 116-119.
Chakraborty, S., Das, P.K., Guha, B., Barman, B. and Sarmah, K.K. 2001.
Coheritability correlation and path analysis of yield components in
boro rice. Oryza, 38 (3-4): 99-101.
Chandra, R. and Pradhan, S.K. 2003. Analysis of genetic variability, heritability
and genetic advance for yield and yield components in lowland rice.
Indian J. Plant Genet. Res. 16(3): 182-183.
Choudhary, P.K.D. and Das, P.K. 1998. Genetic variability, correlation and path
coefficient analysis in deep water rice. Ann. Agric. Res., 19(2): 120-
124.
Das, P.K., Chakraborty, S., Burman, B. and Sarmah, K.K. 2001. Genetic variation
for harvest index, grain yield and yield components in boro rice.
Oryza, 38 (3-4): 149-150.
Das, R., Borbora, T.K., Sarma, M.K. and Sarma, N.K. 2005. Genotypic variability
for grain yield and flood tolerance in semi-deep water rice (Oryza
sativa L.) of Assam. Oryza, 42(4): 313-314.
Datta, R.N. and Rao, A.U.S. 1988. Genetic variability and correlation studies in
rice under semi deep water logged situation. Oryza, 25(4): 360-364.
Deming, J., Zhang, J. and Guangshenz. 2004. Effects of drought stress during
reproductive stages on grain yield and quality of different genotypes
in rice. CIMMYT/ Drought/Rockefeller Foundation Workshop, pp.
462-472.
Deshmukh, P.S., Kumar, A.R., Bhagat, K., Dhandapani, R., Tuti, M.D., Prakash,
G., Kushwaha, S.R. and Singh, T.P. 2007. Strategies for improving
abiotic stress tolerance in crop plants. National Seminar on
“Physiological and molecular approaches for increasing yield and
quality of Agricultural, Horticultural and Medicinal plants under
changing environment” 29th Nov. to 1st Dec., pp. 146-151.
Devi, L.S., Raina, F.A., Pandey, M.K. and Kole, C.R. 2006. Genetic parameters of
variation for yield and its components in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Crop
Res. J. Hisar, 32(1): 69-71.
Evenson, R.E., Herdt, R.W. and Hossain, M. 1996. Rice research in Asia: Progress
and priorities. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 337-339.
Farooq, M., Tagle, A.G., Santos, R.E., Ebron, L.A., Fujita, D. and Kobayashi, N.
2010. Quantitative Trait Loci mapping for leaf length and leaf width in
rice cv. IR64 derived lines. J. Integr. Pl. Biol., 52(6): 578-584.
Farooq, M., Wahid, A., Ito, O., Lee, D.J. and Siddique, K.H.M. 2009. Advances in
drought resistance of rice. Crit. Rev. Pl. Sci., 28: 199-217.
Gomez, M., Babu, R.C., Shanmugasundaram, P., Satheeshkumar, R., Suresh, R.,
Biji, K.R., Boopathi, N.M., Jeyaprakash, P., Gurumurthy, S. and Price,
A. H. 2005. QTL mapping and marker assisted selection for drought
tolerance in rice (Oryza sativa L.). In: Proceedings of the 2nd

International Conference on Integrated Approaches to Sustain and
Improve Plant Production under Drought Stress. University of Rome,
„„La Sapienza‟‟, Rome, Italy, September 24-28, pp. 6-19.
Gomez, M.S. and Rangasamy, P. 2002. Correlation and path analysis of yield and
physiological characters in drought resistant rice (Oryza sativa L.) Int.
J. Mendal, 19(1-2): 33-34.
Gomez, S.M. and Kalamani, A. 2003. Scope of landraces for future drought
tolerance breeding programme in rice. Pl. Archives, 3(1): 77-79.
Gomez, S.M., Kumar, S.S., Jeyaprakash, P., Suresh, R., Biji, K.R., Boopathi,
N.M., Price, A.H. and Babu, R.C. 2006. Mapping QTLs linked to
Physio-Morphological and plant production traits under drought stress
in Rice (Oryza sativa L.) in the target environment. American J.
Biochemistry and Biotech., 2(4): 161-169.
Gomez, S.M., Manikanda, B.N., Satheeshkumar, S., Ramasubramanian, T.,
Chengsong, Z., Jeyaprakash, P., Senthil, A. and Babu, R.C. 2010.
Molecular mapping and location of QTLs for drought-resistance traits
in indica rice (Oryza sativa L.) lines adapted to target Environments.
Acta Physiol. Plant., 32: 355-364.
Halil, S. and Beser, N. 2003. Correlation and path coefficient analysis for some
yield related traits in rice (Oryza Sativa L.) under three conditions.
Turk J. Agric. For. 27: 77-83.
Hasib, K. M. 2005. Genetic variability, interrelations and path analysis for panicle
characters in scented rice. Crop Res. J. Hissar, 30(1): 37-39.

Huke, R.E. and Huke, E.H. 1997. Rice area by type of culture: South, Southeast,
and East Asia. IRRI, Los Banos, Philippines, pp. 413-419.
Husain, A.A., Maurya, D.M. and Vaish, C.P. 1987. Studies on quality status of
indigenous upland rice (O. sativa L.). Ind. J. Genet., 42(2): 145-151.
Iftekharuddaula, K.M., Hassan, M.S., Islam, M.J., Badshah, M.A., Islam, M. R.
and Akhter, K. 2001. Genetic evaluation and selection criteria of
hybrid rice in irrigated ecosystem of Bangladesh. Pakistan J.
Biological Sci., 4: 790-792.
Iftekharuddula, K.M., Akhtar, K., Hassan, M.S., Fatema, K. and Badshah, A.
2002. Genetic divergence, character association and selection criteria
in irrigated rice. J. Biol. Sci., 2(4): 243-246.
Jaiswal, H.K., Shrivastava, A.K. and Dey, A. 2007. Variability and association
studies in indigenous aromatic rice. Oryza, 44(4): 351-353.
Jing Q., Spiertz, J.H.J., Hengsdijk, H. Keulen; H.V., Cao. W. and Dai, T. 2010.
Adaptation and Performance of Rice Genotypes in Tropical and
Subtropical Environments NJAS Wageningen. Journal of Life
Sciences. 57(2): 149-157.
Janardhanam, V., Nadarajan, N. and Jebaraj, S. 2002. Correlation and path
analysis in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Madras Agric. J., 88(10/12): 719-
720.
Johnson, H.W., Robinson, H.F. and Comstock, R.E. 1955. Estimates of genetic
and environmental variability in soybean. Agron. J. 47: 314-318.

Johnson, P.L., Sarawgi, A.K. and Verma, R.K. 2007. Correlation coefficient and
path analysis for quantitative characters under rainfed lowland rice. J.
Agril. Issues, 12(1): 46-51.
Kavitha, S. and Reddi, N.S.R. 2002. Variability, heritability and genetic advance
of some important traits in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Andhra Agric J.,
49(3-4): 222-224.
Khedikar, V.P., Bharose, A.A., Sharma, D. and Khedikar, Y.P. 2003. Studies on
genetic parameter in scented rice genotypes: J. Soils Crops, 13(2):
338-342.
Khedikar, V.P., Bharose, A.A., Sharma, D., Khedikar, Y.P. and Khillare, A. S.
2004. Path coefficient analysis of yield components of scented rice. J.
Soils Crops, 14(1): 198-201.
Krishnayya, G. and Ramamurty, K.S. 1991. Influence of different level of soil
moisture stress on physiological parameters of upland Rice cultivars.
Ind. J. Pl. Physiol., 34(4): 387-391.
Kumar, A., Bernier, J., Verulkar, S.B., Lafitte, H.R. and Atlin, G.N. 2008.
Breeding for drought tolerance: Direct selection for yield, response to
selection and use of drought-tolerant donors in upland and lowland-
adapted populations. Field Crops Res., 107: 221-231.
Kumar, R., Malaiya, S. and Shrivastava, M.N. 2004. Evaluation of morph-
physiological traits associated with drought tolerance in rice. Ind. J.
Pl. Physiol., 9(3): 305-307.
Lafitte, H.R., Ismail, A. and Bennet, A. 2004a. Abiotic stress tolerance in rice for
Asia: Progress and the future. In: Fischer, T. (ed.) New directions for a
diverse planet: Proceedings of the 4th International Crop Science
Congress, Brisbane, Australia, pp. 417-426.
Lafitte, H.R., Li, Z.K., Vijayakumar, C.H.M., Gao, Y.M., Shi, Y. and Xu, J.L.
2006. Improvements of rice drought tolerance through backcross
breeding: evaluation of donors and selection in drought nurseries.
Field Crops Res., 97: 77-86.
Lafitte, H.R., Price, A.H. and Courtois, B. 2004b. Yield response to water deficit
in an upland rice mapping population: associations among traits and
genetic markers. Theor. Appl. Genet., 109: 1237-1246.
Lafitte, H.R., Yongsheng, G., Yan, S. and Li, Z.K. 2004c. Whole plant responses,
key process and adaptation to drought stress: the case of rice. J. Expt.
Bot., 58(2): 169-175.
Lanceras, J.C., Pantuwan, G., Jongdee, B. and Toojinda, T. 2004. Quantitative trait
loci associated with drought tolerance at reproductive stage in rice. Pl.
Physiol., 135: 384-399.
Li, Z.K. and Xu, J.L. 2007. Breeding for drought and salt tolerant rice (Oryza
sativa L.): progress and perspectives. In: Jenks, M.A. (ed.) Advances
in molecular breeding toward drought and salt tolerant crops. Springer,
USA, pp. 531-564.
Liu, C.G. and Zhang, G.Q. 2006. Single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) and its
application in rice. Yi Chuan, 28(6): 737-744.
Liu, H.Y., Mei, H.W., Yu, X.Q., Zou, G.H., Liu, G.L. and Luo, L.J. 2006.
Towards improving the drought tolerance of rice in China. Pl. Genet.
Resour., 4: 47-53.
Madhavilatha, L., Sekhar, M.R., Suneetha, Y. and Srinivas, T. 2005. Genetic
variability, correlation and path analysis for yield and quality traits in
rice (Oryza sativa L.). Research on Crops, 6(3): 527-534.
Mall, A.K., Babu, J.D.P., and Babu, G.S. 2005. Estimation of genetic variability in
rice. J. Maharashtra Agric. Univ., 30(2):166-168.
Manomani, S. and Ranganathan, T.B. 2006. Path analysis in early x very early
crosses of rice. Oryza, 43(1): 62-63.
Medhi, K., Talukdar, P., Barua, P. K. and Baruah, I. 2004. Extent of genetic
variation in indigenous scented rice varieties of Assam. Indian J. Plant
Genetic Resour., 17(1): 27-29.
Mishra, L.K., Sarawgi, A.K. and Mishra, R.K. 2003. Genetic diversity for
morphological and quality traits in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Advances in
Plant Sciences. 16(1): 287-293.
Mishra, L.K. and Verma, R.K. 2002. Correlation and path coefficient analysis for
morphological and quality traits in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Plant
Archives, 2(2): 224-228
Marchezan, E., Martin, T.N., Santos, F.M. and Camargo, E.R. 2005. Path
coefficient analysis of rice yield components. Ciencia-Rural. 35(5):
1027-1033.
Monalisa, M., Ali, M.N. and Sasmal, B.G. 2006. Variability, correlation and path
coefficient analysis in some important traits of lowland rice. Crop
Research J. Hissar, 31(1): 153-156.
Murthy, B.R. Raman, K.V. and Murty, P.S.S. 2004. Collection and
Characterization of Paddy Germplasm in High Attitude and Tribal

Area Zone of Vishakhapatnam. Indian J. Plant Genetic Resour., 17(1):
30-34.
Naik, D., Sao, A. and Sarawgi, A.K. 2005. Association analysis for quality and
yield components in some indigenous scented rice accessions. Indian
J. Plant Genetic Resour., 18(2): 266-268.
Nguyen, H.T., Babu, R.C. and Blum, A. 1997. Breeding for drought resistance in
rice: physiological and molecular genetics considerations. Crop Sci.,
37: 1426-1434.
O‟Toole, J.C. 2004. Rice and water: The final frontier. In: The first international
conference on rice for future, ED. The Rockefeller Foundation,
Bangkok, Thailand. p. 26.
O‟Toole, J.C. and Datta, S.K. 1986. Drought resistance in rainfed lowland rice, In:
Progress in Rainfed Lowland Rice, Int. Rice Res. Inst., Makati City,
Philippines, pp. 145-158.
Pandey, S., Bhandari, H., Sharan, R., Dind, S., Peapertchob, P., Naik, D. and
Taunk, K.S. 2005. Coping with drought in agriculture of developing
countries: insights from the rice farming in Asia. In: Proceeding of the
2nd International conference on integrated approaches to sustain and
improve plant production under drought stress. University of Rome,
“La Sapienza”, Rome, Italy, September 24-28, pp. 84-89.
Pantuwan, G., Fukai, S., Cooper, M., Rajatasereekul, S. and O‟Toole, J. C. 2002.
Yield response of rice (Oryza sativa L.) genotypes to drought under
rainfed lowland and selection of drought resistant genotypes. Field
Crop Res., 73:169-180.

Panwar, L.L. and Ali, M. 2007. Correlation and Path analysis of yield and yield
components in transplanted rice. Oryza, 44: 115 – 120.
Passioura, J. B. 1976. Environmental biology and crop improvement. Funct. Pl.
Bio., 29: 537-546.
Passioura, J.B. 2006. Increasing crop productivity when water scarce, from
breeding to field management. Agric. Water Management, 80: 176-
196.
Patil, H.E. and Patil, S.D. 2009. Genetic engineering for drought resistance in
Rice. Agrobios Newsl., 7(8): 6-7.
Patil, P.A., Mahajan, C.R., Mehetre, S.S. and Hajare, D.H. 1993. Analysis of
variability and heritability in upland rice. Oryza, 30: 154-156.
Patil, P.V., and Sarawgi, A.K. 2005. Character association and component analysis
in aromatic rice accessions from Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh.
PKV Res. J., 29(1): 59-65.
Powell, W., Machray, G.C. and Provan, J. 1996. Polymorphism revealed by simple
sequence repeats. Trends Pl. Sci., 1: 215-222.
Price, A.H., Steele, K.A., Moore, B.J. and Jones, R.G.W. 2002. Effects of
phenotyping environment on identification of quantitative trait loci for
rice root morphology under anaerobic conditions. Crop Sci., 42: 255-
265.
Puckridge, D.W. and O‟Tolle, J.C. 1981. Dry matter and grain production of
rice, using a line source sprinkler in drought studies. Field Crops
Res., 3: 303-319.
Rahangdale, S.L. and Khorgade, P.W. 1988. Studies in genetic variability
correlation and path analysis in upland rice. PKV. Res. J., 12: 98-101.
Rajamani, S., Rani, C.V.D. and Subramanyam, D. 2004. Genetic Variability and
character association in Rice. Andhra Agric. J., 51(1-2): 36-38.
Rani, S.N., Prasad, G.S.V., Reddy, B.P. and Veni, K.B. 2001. Genetic variability
for yield components in aromatic and quality rice germplasm. Indian
J. Plant Genetic Resour., 14(2): 206-209.
Row, S.K. and Venkateswarlu, B. 1983. Influence of varied moisture regime of
different growth phase on yield component in rice. Ind. J. Pl.
Physiol., 26: 126-132.
Sankar, P.D., Sheeba, A. and Anbumalarmathi, J. 2006. Variability and character
association studies in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Agric. Sci. Digest., 26(3):
182-184.
Sarma, M.K. and Bhuyan, J. 2004. Genetic variability and divergence studies in
ahu rices (Oryza sativa L.) of Assam. Advances in Plant Sciences,
17(1): 323-328.
Sharma, N., Singh, N., Singh, M. and Bharaj, T.S. 2008. Quality of aromatic rice
in Basmati Improvement . Indian J. of Agric. Sci., 78(1): 42-49.
Satish, J., Seetha, K.V., Srinivasulu, R. and Ramareddi, N.S. 2003. Correlation
and path analysis of certain quantitative and physiological characters
in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Andhra Agric. J., 50(3-4): 231-234.
Satyanarayana, P.V., Sriniwas, T., Reddy, P.R., Madhavilatha, L. and Suneetha, Y.
2005. Studies on variability, correlation and path coefficient analysis
for restorer lines in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Res. Crops, 6(1): 80-84.
Saxena, R.R., Saxena, R.R., Motiramani, N.K., Nichal, S.S. and Sahu, R.K., 2005.
Variability, heritability and genetic advance in scented rice germplasm
accessions. Journal of Interacademicia, 9(4): 487-489.
Seetharamaiah, K.V., Kulkarni, R.S. and Mahadevapa, M. 2001. Variability and
genetic parameter of floral and morphological traits influencing out
crossing in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Andhra Agric. J., 48(3-4): 181-186.
Shahid, M., Latif, T., Iqbal, M. and Khan, M.A. 1994. Genetic studies on drought
tolerance in rice. Sarhad J. of Agric., 10(6): 671-674.
Shashidhar, H.E., Vinod, M.S., Sudhir, N., Sharma, G.V. and Krishnamurthy, K.
2005. Markers linked to grain yield using bulked segregant analysis
approach in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Rice Genet. Newsl., 22: 69-71.
Shastry, S.V., Tran, D.V., Naguyen, V.N. and Nanda, J.S. 2000 Sustainable
integrated rice production. In: Nanda, J.S. (ed.) Rice Breeding and
Genetics: Research Priorities and Challenges. Oxford and IBH Pub.
New Delhi, pp.53-72.
Shivani, D. and Reddy, N. 2000. Variability, heritability and genetic advance for
morphological and physiological characters in certain rice hybrids.
Oryza, 37: 231-233.
Shukla, V., Singh, S., Singh, S.K. and Singh, H. 2004. Analysis of variability and
heritability in new plant type tropical japonica rice (Oryza sativa L.).
Environ. Ecology, 22(1): 44-45.
Singh, G., Singh, T.N. and Singh, S. 1999. Trinodal rooting in rice: a new
parameter on drought resistance. Ind. J. Pl. Physio., 4(30): 232-235.

Singh, H., Deshmukh, R.K., Singh, A., Singh, A.K., Gaikwad, K., Gaikwad, T.,
Sharma, T.R., Mohapatra, T. and Singh, N.K. 2009. Highly variable
SSR markers suitable for rice genotyping using agarose gels. Mol.
Breed., 25(2): 359-364.
Singh, R.P., Rao, M.J.B.K. and Rao, S.K. 1984. Genetic evaluation of upland rice
germplasm. Oryza, 21: 132-137.
Singh, V.N., Singh, A.K., Singh, B.B., Chaturvedi, G.S., Verma, O.P. and Atlin,
G. 2004. In: Poland., D., Sawkins, J., Rabait, M.J. and Hoisinfron, D.
(eds.) Resilient crop for water limited environment: Proceeding of a
workshop held at Cuernavaca Mexico, May 24-28,
Singh, J., Dey, K., Singh, S. and Shashi, J.P. 2005. Variability, heritability, genetic
advance and genetic divergence in induced mutants of irrigated
basmati rice (Oryza sativa L.). Oryza, 42(3): 210-213.
Singh, P.K., Mishra, M.N., Hore, D.K. and Panwar, A.S. 2002. Genetic variability
in some indigenous lowland rice genetypes of North-East India. Indian
Journal of Hill farming, 15(1): 113-115.
Singh, R.K. and Singh, O. 2005. Genetic variation for yield and quality characters
in mutants of aromatic rice. Ann. Agric. Res., 26(3): 406-410.
Sinha, S.K., Tripathi, A.K. and Bisen, U.K. 2004. Study of genetic variability and
correlation coefficient analysis in midland landraces of rice. Ann.
Agric. Res., 25(1): 1-3.
Srinivasan, S., Gomez, S.M., Kumar, S.S., Ganesh, S K., Biji, K.R., Senthil, A.
and Babu, R.C. 2008. QTLs linked to leaf epicuticular wax, physio-
morphological and plant production traits under drought stress in rice
(Oryza sativa L.). Pl. Growth Regul., 56: 245-256.
Souroush, H.R., Mesbah, M., Hossain, Z.A. and Bozorgipour, R. 2004. Genetic
and phenotypic variability and cluster analysis for qualitative and
quantitative traits of rice. Seed Plant, 20(2): 167-182.
Sullivan, C.Y. and Ross, W.M. 1978. Selection for drought and head resistance in
sorghum. In: Russel, W. (ed.) Stress physiology of crop plants. Wiley,
New York, pp. 263-281.
Tomar, B., Dabas, B.S. and Gautam, P.L. 2000. Genetic variability, correlation
coefficient and path analysis for quantitative characters under rainfed
ecosystem in the native land races of rice. Indian J. Plant Genetics
Resour. 13(3):239-246.
Tyagi, K., Kumar, B., Ramesh, B. and Tomar, A. 2004. Genetic variability and
correlations for some seedlings and mature plant traits in 70 genotypes
of rice. Research Crops, 5(1): 60-65.
Umadevi, M., Veerabadhiran, P. and Manonmani, S. 2009. Genetic variability,
heritability, genetic advance and correlation for morphological traits in
rice genotypes. Madras Agric. J., 96(7-12): 316-318.
Umayal, L., Babu, R.C. and Sadasivam, S. 2001. Water stress induced histological
and enzymatic changes in roots of rice cultivars. Pl. Archives, 1: 31-
34.
Veni, B.K. and Rani, N.S. 2006, Association of grain yield with quality
characteristics and other yield components in rice, Oryza, 43: 320-322.

Venuprasad, R., Bool, M.E., Dalid, C.O., Bernier, J., Kumar, A. and Atlin, G.N.
2009a. Genetic loci responding to two cycles of divergent selection for
grain yield under drought stress in a rice breeding population.
Euphytica, 167: 261-269.
Venuprasad, R., Dalid, C.O., Del Valle, M., Zhao, D., Espiritu, M., Sta Cruz,
M.T., Amante, M., Kumar, A. and Atlin, G.N. 2009b. Identification
and characterization of large-effect quantitative trait loci for grain
yield under lowland drought stress in rice using bulk-segregant
analysis. Theor. Appl. Genet., 120: 177-190.
Venuprasad, R., Shashidhar, H.E., Hittalmani, S. and Hemamalini, G.S. 2002.
Tagging quantitative trait loci associated with grain yield and root
morphological traits in rice under contrasting moisture regimes.
Euphytica, 128: 293-300.
Verma, O.P., Singh, U.S., Dwivedi, J.L. and Singh, P.P. 2000. Genetic variability,
heritability and genetic advance for quantitative traits in rice. Oryza,
57(2): 38-40.
Verulkar, S.B., Khillare, A., Raisagar, A., Dudhare, M.S. and Shrivastava, M.N.
2004. Progress in developing drought tolerant rice cultivars for Eastern
India. In: Resilient crop for water limited environment: Proceeding of
a workshop held at Cuernavaca Mexico, May 24-28, pp. 243-244.
Verulkar, S.B., Mandal, N.P., Dwivedi, J.L., Singh, B.N., Sinha, P.K., Mahato,
R.N., Dongre, P., Singh, O.N., Bose, L.K., Swain, P., Robin, S., Babu,
R.C., Senthil, S., Jain, A., Shashidhar, H.E., Hittalmani, S., Vara Cruz,
C., Paris, T., Raman, A., Haefele, S., Serraj, R., Atlin, G. and Kumar,
A. 2010. Breeding resilient and productive genotypes adapted to
drought-prone rainfed ecosystem of India. Field Crops Res., 117: 197-
208.
Widawsky, D.A. and O‟Toole, J.C. 1990. Prioritization the rice biotechnology
research agenda for Eastern India. The Rockfeller Foundation. New
York, USA, pp. 384-388.
Wopereis, M.C.S., Kropff, M.J., Maligaya, A.R. and Tuong, T.P. 1996. Drought
stress responses of two lowland rice cultivars to soil water status. Field
Crops Res., 46: 21-39.
Xu, J.L., Lafitte, H.R., Gao, Y.M., Fu, B.Y., Torre, R. and Li, Z.K. 2005. QTLs
for drought escape and tolerance identified in a set of random
introgression lines of rice. Theor. Appl. Genet., 111(8): 1642-1650.
Yadav, S.C., Pandey, M.K., Suresh, B.G. 2008 Association, direct and indirect
effect of yield attributing traits on yield in rice (Oryza sativa L.).
Annals of Biology, 24(1): 57-62.
Zhang, J., Zheng, H.G., Aarti, A., Pantuwan, G., Nguyen, T.T., Tripathy, J.N.,
Sarial, A.K., Robin, S., Babu, R.C. and Nguyen, B.D. 2001. Locating
genomic regions associated with components of drought resistance in
rice: comparative mapping within and across species. Theor. Appl.
Genet., 103: 19-29.
Zou, G.H., Mei, H.W., Liu, H.Y., Liu, G.L., Hu, S.P., Yu, X.Q., Li, M.S., Wu, J.H.
and Luo, L.J. 2005. Grain yield responses to moisture regimes in a rice
population: association among traits and genetic markers. Theor. Appl.
Genet., 112(1): 106-113.

Table 4.1: Analysis of variance for different characters in rice under terminal
stage drought and irrigated condition during Kharif 2010
Mean sum of squares due to genotypes

Characters
Terminal stage drought Irrigated
Days to 50 per cent flowering 34.42** 43.33**
Plant height (cm) 526.65** 1032.85**
Panicle length (cm) 4.80 9.07
Flag leaf length (cm) 90.88** 45.83
Flag leaf Width (cm) 0.05 0.04
FLA - Flag leaf area (cm2) 84.94 59.72
Grain Length (mm) 3.67** 3.11**
Grain Width (mm) 0.27 0.25
Grain L:B ratio 0.13 0.24
100 seed weight (g) 0.14** 0.11**
Harvest index (%) 72.07** 78.07**
Biological yield (g/m2) 11575.65** 582672.84**
Grain yield (g/m2) 2047.62 69983.36**
* Significant at 0.05 probability level and ** = Significant at 0.01 probability

level
Table 4.2:MEAN OF GRAIN YIELD WITH DSI IN TSD AND IRRIGATED
CONDITION
TSD IRRIGATED TSD

E.NO MEAN MEAN YIELD DSI
DESIGNATION QTLs INFORMATION YIELD
1 IR 86931-B-6 with QTL DTY3.2 110.0 588.9 1.11
2 IR 86931-B-9 with QTL DTY3.2 133.3 588.9 1.06
3 IR 86931-B-26 with QTL DTY1.1 & 3.2 136.7 644.4 1.08
4 IR 86931-B-32 with QTL DTY3.2 101.0 477.8 1.08
5 IR 86931-B-36 without any QTL 123.3 466.7 1.00
8 IR 86931-B-55 with QTL DTY1.1 & 3.2 116.7 388.9 0.96
9 IR 86931-B-56 with QTL DTY1.1 & 3.2 123.3 588.9 1.08
10 IR 86931-B-60 with QTL DTY3.2 150.0 500.0 0.96
11 IR 86931-B-66 with QTL DTY1.1 156.7 377.8 0.80
12 IR 86931-B-67 with QTL DTY3.2 93.3 455.6 1.09
14 IR 86931-B-86 with QTL DTY1.1 136.7 388.9 0.89
18 IR 86931-B-131 with QTL DTY1.1 146.7 377.8 0.84
19 IR 86931-B-132 with QTL DTY3.2 163.3 766.7 1.07
20 IR 86931-B-147 with QTL DTY1.1 110.0 444.4 1.03
21 IR 86931-B-150 with QTL DTY1.1 110.0 522.2 1.08
25 IR 86931-B-166 with QTL DTY1.1 & 3.2 116.7 433.3 1.00
26 IR 86931-B-170 with QTL DTY3.2 150.0 388.9 0.84
28 IR 86931-B-187 with QTL DTY1.1 65.0 300.0 1.07
29 IR 86931-B-192 with QTL DTY1.1 156.7 855.6 1.12
31 IR 86931-B-224 with QTL DTY1.1 150.0 255.6 0.56
32 IR 86931-B-233 with QTL DTY1.1 120.0 500.0 1.04
33 IR 86931-B-256 with QTL DTY1.1 & 3.2 80.0 377.8 1.08
35 IR 86931-B-279 with QTL DTY1.1 & 3.2 113.3 1022.2 1.21
36 IR 86931-B-294 with QTL DTY1.1 & 3.2 100.0 522.2 1.10
37 IR 86931-B-301 with QTL DTY1.1 166.7 777.8 1.07
39 IR 86931-B-323 with QTL DTY1.1 130.0 688.9 1.11
41 IR 86931-B-310 with QTL DTY1.1 113.3 400.0 0.98
42 IR 86931-B-346 with QTL DTY1.1 156.7 222.2 0.40
43 IR 86931-B-347 with QTL DTY1.1 & 3.2 93.3 88.9 -0.07
44 IR 86931-B-365 with QTL DTY3.2 110.0 611.1 1.12
45 IR 86931-B-366 with QTL DTY3.2 153.3 733.3 1.08
46 IR 86931-B-373 with QTL DTY1.1 & 3.2 146.7 333.3 0.76
47 IR 86931-B-390 with QTL DTY3.2 140.0 422.2 0.91
48 IR 86931-B-400 with QTL DTY1.1 123.3 333.3 0.86
49 IR 86931-B-414 with QTL DTY1.1 & 3.2 106.7 444.4 1.04
51 IR 86931-B-454 with QTL DTY3.2 193.3 344.4 0.60
52 IR 86931-B-456 with QTL DTY1.1 & 3.2 128.3 122.2 -0.07
53 IR 86931-B-464 with QTL DTY3.2 80.0 255.6 0.94
54 IR 86931-B-467 with QTL DTY3.2 93.3 455.6 1.09
55 IR 86931-B-486 with QTL DTY3.2 126.7 555.6 1.05
57 IR 86931-B-498 with QTL DTY1.1 91.7 222.2 0.80
58 IR 86931-B-502 with QTL DTY1.1 & 3.2 90.0 266.7 0.90
59 IR 86931-B-516 with QTL DTY1.1 & 3.2 70.0 700.0 1.23
60 IR 86931-B-519 with QTL DTY1.1 & 3.2 96.7 755.6 1.19
61 IR 86931-B-17 with QTL DTY1.1 93.3 422.2 1.06
62 IR 86931-B-521 with QTL DTY1.1 96.7 544.4 1.12
63 IR 86931-B-523 with QTL DTY3.2 120.0 355.6 0.90
64 IR 86931-B-524 with QTL DTY1.1 & 3.2 113.3 188.9 0.55
65 IR 86931-B-547 with QTL DTY3.2 73.3 300.0 1.03
66 IR 86931-B-549 with QTL DTY3.2 68.3 288.9 1.04
67 IR 86931-B-552 with QTL DTY1.1 & 3.2 106.7 300.0 0.88
69 IR 86931-B-561 with QTL DTY3.2 130.0 800.0 1.14
70 IR 86931-B-564 with QTL DTY1.1 96.7 233.3 0.80
71 IR 86931-B-574 with QTL DTY3.2 130.0 255.6 0.67
73 N22 Check 163.3 288.9 0.59
74 Swarna Check 10.0 211.1 1.30
75 IR 64 Check 140.0 544.4 1.01
76 IR 36 Check 118.3 322.2 0.86
77 MTU 1010 Check 136.7 655.6 1.08
Drought Intensity Index (DII) = (1-Xs/Xi) (Ramírez-Vallejo and Kelly,1998)
DSI = (1-Ys/Yi)/DII (Fischer and Maurer, 1978)
Table 4.3: Genetics parameters of variation for yield and its components under TSD
and Irrigated condition (Kharif 2010)
Character Condition Mean Range GCV PCV h2 GA GA %

max min (%) mean
DF TSD 77.79 91.50 67.00 5.25 5.42 0.93 8.15 10.51
Irrigated 82.84 97.00 71.00 5.61 5.63 0.99 9.54 11.51
PH TSD 123.90 150.80 75.65 12.49 13.68 0.83 29.09 23.47
Irrigated 144.83 176.00 79.65 14.38 16.90 0.72 36.51 25.20
PL TSD 23.81 28.85 17.20 4.27 7.53 0.32 1.26 4.97
Irrigated 25.31 29.20 20.50 5.67 11.30 0.25 1.40 5.87
FLL TSD 41.61 55.00 28.05 13.11 18.78 0.48 7.85 18.86
Irrigated 36.59 49.00 27.05 6.25 17.41 0.12 1.69 4.61
FLW TSD 1.23 1.65 0.85 6.90 17.22 0.16 0.07 5.69
Irrigated 1.37 1.70 1.10 2.30 15.05 0.02 0.01 0.72
FLA TSD 35.70 51.45 23.35 11.83 22.94 0.26 4.49 12.57
Irrigated 35.12 45.25 25.70 5.05 21.42 0.05 0.86 2.44
GL TSD 8.14 9.93 6.68 7.06 9.42 0.56 1.77 10.64
Irrigated 8.34 10.03 7.43 5.95 8.74 0.46 1.39 8.33
GW TSD 2.73 3.10 2.05 3.30 8.98 0.13 0.14 2.56
Irrigated 2.69 3.15 1.95 3.34 8.68 0.14 0.14 2.61
LB TSD 3.00 3.77 2.51 5.58 10.94 0.26 0.18 6.00
Irrigated 3.12 4.01 2.12 7.11 14.16 0.25 0.23 7.37
SI TSD 2.07 2.54 1.49 10.00 15.02 0.44 0.28 13.52
Irrigated 2.17 2.60 1.62 8.80 13.12 0.44 0.26 11.98
HI TSD 27.82 39.20 3.00 19.11 23.79 0.64 8.80 31.63
Irrigated 22.12 43.32 10.98 24.61 31.44 0.61 8.78 39.69
BY TSD 416.71 566.65 133.35 16.83 19.58 0.73 124.10 29.78
Irrigated 1928.85 3322.00 788.90 24.61 30.99 0.63 776.44 40.25
GY TSD 115.53 173.35 10.00 25.77 29.49 0.76 53.59 46.39
Irrigated 432.02 1022.20 122.20 39.31 46.94 0.70 293.02 67.82
DF =Days to 50 per cent flowering; PH= Plant height (cm); PL =Panicle length (cm); FLL =Flag leaf
length (cm); FLW =Flag leaf Width (cm); FLA=Flag leaf area (cm2); GL =Grain Length (mm); GW =Grain
Width (mm); LB =Grain L:B ratio; SI =100 seed weight (g); HI =Harvest index (%);BY =Biological yield
(g/m2); GY =Grain yield (g/m2); TSD = Terminal Stage Drought
Table 4.5: Correlation coefficient of grain yield and its component in with QTL DTY 1.1 & 3.2 line
PH PL FLL FLW FLA GL GW LB SI HI BY GY

T 0.049 -0.367 0.431 -0.113 0.247 0.152 0.134 -0.001 0.144 -0.020 0.193 0.063
DF -0.093 0.213 -0.186 0.287 0.128 0.101 0.149 0.020 0.234 0.323 0.192 0.285
I
T -0.079 0.569* -0.243 0.300 -0.613* 0.020 -0.511* -0.042 -0.145 0.243 -0.026
PH
I 0.005 0.409 -0.064 0.204 -0.337 0.120 -0.356 -0.240 -0.566* 0.286 -0.057
T 0.075 0.184 0.123 -0.015 -0.007 0.028 -0.079 0.071 0.183 0.137
PL
I 0.181 0.355 0.409 0.177 0.320 0.002 0.343 0.367 0.186 0.340
T -0.363 0.566* -0.477* 0.012 -0.401 -0.122 -0.068 0.368 0.106
FLL
I 0.001 0.595* -0.253 0.130 -0.278 0.343 0.367 0.186 0.340
T 0.545* 0.218 -0.154 0.153 0.128 -0.065 0.304 0.076
FLW
I 0.792** 0.111 0.073 0.079 0.343 0.367 0.186 0.340
T -0.254 -0.077 -0.150 0.153 0.128 -0.065 0.076
FLA
I -0.062 0.141 -0.107 0.201 -0.083 0.045 -0.005
T 0.152 0.192 -0.057 0.151 -0.187 0.007
GL
I -0.078 0.883** 0.163 0.302 0.094 0.224
T -0.597* 0.237 0.099 0.201 0.164
GW
I -0.534* 0.253 0.034 0.167 0.173
T 0.342 0.066 -0.290 -0.097
LB
I 0.024 0.245 -0.011 0.097
T 0.148 -0.120 0.017
SI
I 0.483* 0.164 0.381
HI T 0.242 0.871**
I -0.054 0.483*
T 0.676**
BY
I 0.826**
DF - Days to 50 per cent flowering PH - Plant height (cm) PL - Panicle length (cm) FLL – Flag leaf length (cm),
FLW - Flag leaf Width (cm) FLA - Flag leaf area (cm2) GL –Grain Length (mm) GW – Grain Width (mm)
LB – Grain L: B ratio SI -100 seed weight (g) HI-Harvest index (%) BY -Biological yield (g/m2)
GYP - Grain yield (g/m2) T – TSD condition I – Irrigated condition
* Significant at 5% level of significance and **Significant at 1% level of significance

Table 4.10: Path coefficient analysis showing direct and indirect effects of different yield contributing character on yield in with
QTL DTY 1.1 & 3.2 lines
DF PH PL FLL FLW FLA GL GW LB SI HI BY
T -0.001 -0.003 0.007 0.038 -0.013 -0.031 -0.058 0.042 0.000 0.000 -0.015 0.098
DF
I -0.051 0.004 -0.011 -0.017 -0.002 0.002 0.147 -0.118 -0.035 -0.005 0.195 0.171
T 0.000 -0.056 0.002 0.050 -0.028 -0.037 0.234 0.006 -0.190 0.000 -0.109 0.123
PH
I 0.005 -0.044 0.000 0.037 0.001 0.003 -0.489 -0.095 0.615 0.005 -0.342 0.254
T 0.000 0.005 -0.018 -0.007 0.021 -0.015 0.006 -0.002 0.010 0.000 0.054 0.093
PL
I -0.011 0.000 -0.049 0.016 -0.003 0.005 0.257 -0.253 -0.004 -0.007 0.222 0.165
T 0.000 -0.032 0.001 0.089 -0.042 -0.070 0.182 0.004 -0.149 0.000 -0.051 0.186
FLL
I 0.009 -0.018 -0.009 0.091 0.000 0.007 -0.367 -0.103 0.482 0.001 -0.245 0.028
T 0.000 0.014 -0.003 -0.032 0.114 -0.068 -0.083 -0.049 0.113 0.000 0.097 -0.033
FLW
I -0.015 0.003 -0.018 0.000 -0.008 0.010 0.160 -0.058 -0.137 -0.007 0.116 0.021
T 0.000 -0.017 -0.002 0.050 0.062 -0.124 0.097 -0.024 -0.056 0.000 0.023 0.149
FLA
I -0.007 -0.009 -0.020 0.054 -0.006 0.012 -0.090 -0.112 0.185 -0.004 -0.050 0.040
T 0.000 0.034 0.000 -0.042 0.025 0.032 -0.383 0.084 0.226 0.001 0.114 -0.095
GL
I -0.005 0.015 -0.009 -0.023 -0.001 0.001 1.451 0.062 -1.529 -0.003 0.183 0.084
T 0.000 -0.001 0.000 0.001 -0.018 0.010 -0.102 0.315 -0.222 0.000 0.075 0.102
GW
I -0.008 -0.005 -0.016 0.012 -0.001 0.002 -0.113 -0.791 0.925 -0.005 0.021 0.148
T 0.000 0.029 -0.001 -0.035 0.035 0.019 -0.233 -0.188 0.372 0.000 0.050 -0.147
LB
I -0.001 0.016 0.000 -0.025 -0.001 -0.001 1.281 0.423 -1.731 -0.001 0.148 -0.010
T 0.000 0.002 0.002 -0.011 0.017 0.001 -0.245 0.075 0.126 0.001 0.112 -0.061
SI
I -0.012 0.011 -0.017 -0.005 -0.003 0.003 0.236 -0.200 -0.042 -0.020 0.292 0.146
T 0.000 0.008 -0.001 -0.006 0.015 -0.004 -0.058 0.031 0.025 0.000 0.753 0.122
HI
I -0.016 0.025 -0.018 -0.037 -0.002 -0.001 0.439 -0.027 -0.423 -0.010 0.604 -0.048
T 0.000 -0.014 -0.003 0.033 -0.008 -0.037 0.071 0.063 -0.108 0.000 0.182 0.506
BY
I -0.010 -0.012 -0.009 0.003 0.000 0.001 0.137 -0.132 0.019 -0.003 -0.033 0.887
TSD RESIDUAL EFFECT =0.06 IRRIGATED RESIDUAL EFFECT =0.02
T – TSD condition I – Irrigated condition
Table: 4.4: Correlation coefficient of grain yield and its component in with QTL DTY 1.1 line

T -0.016 0.052 -0.100 0.183 0.086 0.278 0.152 0.096 -0.203 0.070 -0.035 0.016
DF
I -0.016 0.052 -0.100 0.183 0.086 -0.060 0.188 -0.203 0.010 -0.052 -0.117 -0.191
T 0.040 0.424 -0.169 0.249 -0.100 0.047 -0.163 -0.317 -0.490* 0.181 -0.441
PH
I 0.073 0.075 0.028 0.095 -0.434 -0.396 0.152 -0.088 -0.553* 0.349 -0.146
T 0.008 0.093 0.094 0.034 -0.063 0.096 -0.317 -0.490* 0.181 -0.441
PL
I 0.299 0.245 0.448 0.197 -0.183 0.241 0.236 -0.062 0.312 0.165
T -0.308 0.525* -0.127 0.138 -0.259 -0.129 -0.111 -0.046 -0.153

FLL
I -0.263 0.626** -0.101 -0.150 0.040 -0.196 -0.099 0.490* 0.311
T 0.629** 0.110 -0.030 0.134 0.169 0.212 0.035 0.237

FLW
I 0.577* -0.046 0.189 -0.187 -0.047 0.059 -0.094 -0.067
T -0.022 0.119 -0.142 0.169 0.212 0.035 0.237

FLA I -0.096 0.0567 -0.131 -0.213 -0.049 0.364 0.220
T 0.454 0.399 0.211 0.096 -0.099 -0.042

GL
I 0.007 0.628** 0.668 0.292 0.049 0.257
T -0.634** 0.211 0.096 -0.099 -0.042

GW
I -0.765** 0.072 -0.112 0.154 0.005
T -0.158 -0.023 0.045 0.176

LB
I 0.072 -0.112 0.154 0.005
T 0.218 0.247 0.457
SI
I 0.174 0.124 0.216
T -0.608 0.697**
HI
I -0.170 0.624**
T 0.618**
BY
I 0.634**
GY - Grain yield (g/m2) T – TSD condition I – Irrigated condition
* - Significant at 5% level of significance and ** - Significant at 1% level of significance

QTL DTY 1.1 lines
-0.021 0.000 0.001 -0.021 0.042 -0.023 0.048 -0.041 -0.038 0.008 0.087 -0.029
T
DF
I -0.032 0.001 0.009 -0.066 -0.018 0.081 0.020 0.047 -0.072 0.000 -0.042 -0.082
0.000 -0.011 0.001 0.089 -0.039 -0.068 -0.017 -0.012 0.064 0.012 -0.614 0.152
T
PH
I 0.001 -0.026 0.002 -0.030 -0.012 0.046 0.146 0.038 -0.141 -0.002 -0.448 0.244
-0.001 0.000 0.035 0.001 0.021 -0.025 0.005 0.017 0.038 -0.004 -0.005 0.063
T
PL
I -0.008 -0.001 0.033 -0.122 -0.106 0.221 -0.066 -0.045 0.085 0.005 -0.050 0.218
0.002 -0.004 0.000 0.211 -0.071 -0.144 -0.022 -0.037 0.102 0.005 -0.139 -0.038
T
FLL
I -0.005 -0.002 0.010 -0.411 0.113 0.308 0.034 -0.037 0.014 -0.004 -0.080 0.343
-0.004 0.001 0.003 -0.065 0.230 -0.172 0.019 0.008 -0.052 -0.006 0.266 0.029
T
FLW
I -0.001 0.000 0.008 0.108 -0.433 0.284 0.015 0.047 -0.066 -0.001 0.047 -0.065
-0.001 -0.002 0.003 0.111 0.145 -0.274 -0.003 -0.032 0.056 -0.003 0.093 0.003
T
FLA
I -0.005 -0.002 0.015 -0.257 -0.249 0.493 0.032 0.014 -0.046 -0.004 -0.040 0.255
-0.006 0.001 0.001 -0.027 0.025 0.006 0.174 -0.123 -0.157 -0.008 0.120 -0.083
T
GL
I 0.001 0.011 0.006 0.041 0.019 0.047 -0.338 0.001 0.223 0.015 0.237 0.034
-0.003 0.000 -0.002 0.029 -0.006 0.032 0.079 -0.273 0.250 -0.013 0.143 -0.041
T
GW
I -0.066 -0.004 -0.006 0.061 -0.082 0.027 -0.002 0.251 0.272 0.001 -0.091 0.107
-0.002 0.001 0.003 -0.054 0.030 0.038 0.069 0.173 -0.395 0.006 -0.028 -0.038
T
LB
I 0.006 0.010 0.008 -0.016 0.081 -0.064 -0.212 -0.192 0.356 0.008 0.227 -0.074
0.004 0.003 0.004 -0.027 0.039 -0.025 0.036 -0.091 0.062 -0.040 0.273 0.209
T
SI
I 0.000 0.002 0.008 0.080 0.020 -0.104 -0.225 0.018 0.136 0.022 0.141 0.086
-0.001 0.005 0.000 -0.023 0.049 -0.020 0.016 -0.031 0.009 -0.008 1.254 -0.513
T
HI
I 0.001 0.014 -0.002 0.040 -0.025 -0.024 -0.098 -0.028 0.099 0.003 0.811 -0.118
0.000 -0.002 0.002 -0.009 0.008 -0.001 -0.017 0.013 0.017 -0.010 -0.762 0.844
T
BY
I 0.003 -0.009 0.010 -0.201 0.040 0.179 -0.016 0.038 -0.037 0.002 -0.137 0.701
TSD RESIDUAL EFFECT = 0.02 IRRIGATED RESIDUAL EFFECT = 0.02
Table 4.6: Correlation coefficient of grain yield and its component in with QTL DTY 3.2 lines

T -0.071 -0.304 -0.048 0.283 0.135 -0.155 -0.153 0.010 -0.090 -0.333 0.004 -0.273
DF
I -0.071 -0.054 -0.219 -0.002 -0.207 -0.151 0.071 -0.143 -0.330 -0.004 0.043 0.064
T 0.425 0.349 -0.148 0.225 0.039 -0.200 0.222 -0.011 -0.072 0.489* 0.292
PH
I 0.218 0.289 -0.066 0.232 0.091 0.418 -0.257 0.379 -0.457 0.308 -0.144
T 0.185 -0.300 -0.045 0.061 -0.130 0.172 0.074 -0.093 0.206 0.109
PL
I 0.394 -0.019 0.313 -0.157 -0.014 -0.102 0.007 0.101 0.064 0.046
FLL T -0.155 0.716** -0.345 -0.059 -0.210 -0.308 -0.332 0.340 0.006
I -0.055 0.801** 0.067 0.037 0.009 0.066 -0.213 0.150 -0.119
FLW T 0.561* -0.040 -0.035 -0.006 0.027 -0.288* -0.054 -0.256
I 0.537* 0.047 -0.368 0.299 -0.126 0.199 0.230 0.257
FLA T -0.317 -0.107 -0.152 -0.249 -0.459 0.278 -0.143
0.075 -0.141 0.143 -0.074 0.275 0.048 0.008
GL T 0.307 0.501* 0.647** 0.263 -0.201 0.022
I 0.058 0.655** 0.305 0.088 0.110 0.146
GW T -0.665 0.562* 0.240 -0.059 0.146
I -0.714 0.424 -0.321 0.107 -0.122
LB T -0.020 0.004 -0.109 -0.108
I -0.119 0.314 -0.012 0.195

SI T 0.282 0.180 0.056
I -0.055 0.120 0.062
HI T -0.055 0.676**
I 0.221 0.801**
BY T 0.691**
I 0.672**

QTL DTY 3.2 lines
DF PH PL FLL FLW FLA GL GW LB SI HI BW
T -0.046 0.000 -0.008 -0.012 0.068 -0.046 -0.020 0.023 -0.002 0.003 -0.236 0.003
DF
I 0.039 0.000 0.002 -0.047 0.000 0.063 -0.057 -0.025 0.074 -0.011 -0.002 0.023
T 0.003 0.000 0.011 0.087 -0.035 -0.077 0.005 0.030 -0.044 0.000 -0.051 0.359
PH
I -0.002 -0.008 -0.009 0.062 -0.011 -0.070 0.034 -0.150 0.134 0.013 -0.307 0.171
T 0.014 0.000 0.026 0.046 -0.072 0.015 0.008 0.019 -0.034 -0.002 -0.066 0.151
PL
I -0.002 -0.001 -0.041 0.084 -0.003 -0.095 -0.060 0.004 0.053 0.001 0.068 0.035
T 0.002 0.000 0.004 0.251 -0.037 -0.246 -0.045 0.009 0.042 0.010 -0.236 0.249
FLL
I -0.008 -0.002 -0.016 0.215 -0.009 -0.244 0.025 -0.013 -0.004 0.002 -0.143 0.084
T -0.013 0.000 -0.007 -0.039 0.241 -0.193 -0.005 0.005 0.001 -0.001 -0.205 -0.039
FLW
I 0.000 0.001 0.001 -0.011 0.174 -0.164 0.018 0.132 -0.156 -0.004 0.133 0.128
T -0.006 0.000 -0.001 0.179 0.135 -0.343 -0.042 0.016 0.030 0.008 -0.326 0.204
FLA
I -0.008 -0.002 -0.013 0.172 0.093 -0.305 0.028 0.051 -0.074 0.001 -0.049 0.153
T 0.007 0.000 0.001 -0.086 -0.009 0.109 0.133 -0.047 -0.100 -0.022 0.187 -0.147
GL
I -0.006 -0.001 0.006 0.014 0.008 -0.023 0.383 -0.020 -0.342 0.010 0.059 0.061
T 0.007 0.000 -0.003 -0.014 -0.008 0.036 0.040 -0.153 0.133 -0.019 0.170 -0.043
GW
I 0.002 -0.003 0.001 0.008 -0.064 0.043 0.022 -0.036 0.373 0.015 -0.216 0.059
T 0.000 0.000 0.004 -0.052 -0.001 0.052 0.066 0.102 -0.201 0.000 0.002 -0.080
LB
I -0.005 0.002 0.004 0.002 0.052 -0.043 0.251 0.257 -0.523 -0.004 0.211 -0.006
T 0.004 0.000 0.002 -0.077 0.006 0.085 0.086 -0.086 0.004 -0.035 0.200 -0.132
SI
I -0.013 -0.003 -0.001 0.014 -0.022 -0.002 0.117 -0.153 0.062 0.035 -0.036 0.066
T 0.015 0.000 -0.002 -0.083 -0.069 0.157 0.035 -0.036 0.000 -0.010 0.712 -0.040
HI
I -0.002 0.003 -0.004 -0.045 0.034 0.022 0.033 0.115 -0.164 -0.001 0.673 0.123
T 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.085 -0.013 -0.095 -0.026 0.009 0.021 0.006 -0.038 0.735
BY
I 0.001 -0.002 -0.002 0.032 0.040 -0.084 0.042 -0.038 0.006 0.004 0.148 0.559
Table 4.7: Correlation coefficient of grain yield and its component in without QTL lines
T 0.230 0.325 0.315 -0.177 0.064 0.044 -0.067 0.088 0.037 -0.189 -0.018 -0.191
DF
I 0.211 -0.090 0.105 -0.061 0.067 -0.062 -0.264 0.195 -0.114 -0.102 -0.031 -0.117
T 0.159 0.310 -0.031 0.181 0.053 -0.073 0.110 -0.061 -0.110 0.264 0.133
PH
I 0.502* *0.492 -0.096 0.327 0.223 0.115 0.058 -0.116 -0.102 0.259 0.099
T 0.074 0.014 -0.050 0.083 0.108 -0.005 0.190 0.029 -0.065 -0.037
PL
I 0.348 0.002 0.296 0.336 0.029 0.146 0.173 0.148 0.318 0.279
T -0.043 0.591** -0.077 0.135 -0.185 -0.306 0.002 0.059 -0.037

FLL
I -0.057 0.755** -0.043 0.141 -0.017 -0.074 -0.101 0.076 -0.021
T 0.765** -0.120 -0.099 -0.039 -0.102 0.176 -0.341 -0.149

FLW
I 0.596** 0.258 0.139 -0.040 0 .357 0.197 0.071 0.149
T -0.142 0.005 -0.142 -0.261 0.136 -0.251 -0.161

FLA
0.170 0.267 -0.081 0.235 0.052 0.130 0.100
T 0.275 0.617** 0.707** -0.140 0.208 0.103

GL
I 0.119 0.275 0.611** 0.183 0.207 0.241
T -0.581** 0.369 -0.067 0.357 0.226

GW
I -0.885** 0.171 0.034 0.168 0.140
T 0.296 -0.084 -0.107 -0.107

LB
I 0.073 0.003 -0.068 -0.040
T -0.101 0.206 0.130
SI
I 0.277 0.180 0.273
T -0.242 0.559*
HI
I 0.376 0.807**
T 0.650**
BY
I 0.835**
LB – Grain L:B ratio SI -100 seed weight (g) HI-Harvest index (%) BY -Biological yield (g/m2)
* Significant at 5% level of significance and ** Significant at 1% level of significance

Table 4.12: Path coefficient analysis showing direct and indirect effects of different yield contributing character on yield in without QTL
lines
T -0.002 0.010 0.003 -0.041 0.009 0.004 -0.003 -0.008 0.011 -0.001 -0.150 -0.015
DF
I -0.067 0.010 0.002 -0.028 0.012 0.020 0.003 -0.054 0.045 0.006 -0.058 -0.019
T -0.001 0.044 0.002 -0.040 0.002 0.012 -0.004 -0.008 0.014 0.001 -0.087 0.217
PH
I -0.014 0.003 -0.013 -0.132 0.019 0.098 -0.011 0.023 0.013 0.006 -0.057 0.163
T -0.001 0.007 0.011 -0.010 0.001 0.003 -0.006 0.012 -0.001 -0.004 0.023 -0.053
PL
I 0.006 0.001 -0.027 -0.093 0.001 0.089 -0.018 0.006 0.034 -0.009 0.083 0.200
T -0.001 0.014 0.001 -0.129 0.002 0.040 0.005 0.015 -0.023 0.007 0.002 0.049
FLL
I -0.007 0.001 -0.009 -0.268 0.011 0.226 0.002 0.029 -0.004 0.004 -0.057 0.048
T 0.000 -0.001 0.000 0.006 -0.056 0.052 0.009 -0.011 -0.005 0.002 0.140 -0.280
FLW
I 0.004 -0.001 -0.000 0.015 -0.197 0.179 -0.014 0.029 -0.009 -0.018 0.111 0.045
T 0.000 0.008 0.001 -0.076 -0.043 0.068 0.010 0.001 -0.018 0.006 0.108 -0.206
FLA
I -0.004 0.001 -0.008 -0.202 -0.117 0.300 -0.009 0.056 -0.019 -0.012 0.029 0.082
T 0.000 0.002 0.001 0.010 0.007 -0.010 -0.071 0.031 0.077 -0.016 -0.111 0.171
GL
I 0.004 0.001 -0.002 0.011 -0.050 0.051 -0.054 0.025 0.065 -0.031 0.103 0.130
T 0.000 -0.003 0.001 -0.017 0.006 0.000 -0.020 0.112 -0.073 -0.009 -0.054 0.293
GW
I 0.018 0.003 -0.001 -0.037 -0.027 0.080 -0.006 0.208 -0.209 -0.009 0.019 0.105
T 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.024 0.002 -0.010 -0.044 -0.065 0.125 -0.007 -0.066 -0.087
LB
I -0.013 0.001 -0.004 0.004 0.007 0.024 -0.015 -0.184 0.236 -0.004 0.002 -0.043
T 0.000 -0.003 0.002 0.039 0.006 -0.018 -0.050 0.041 0.037 -0.023 -0.080 0.169
SI
I 0.001 -0.001 -0.004 0.019 -0.070 0.070 -0.033 0.036 0.017 -0.051 0.156 0.113
T 0.001 -0.005 0.000 0.000 -0.010 0.009 0.010 -0.008 -0.011 0.002 0.795 -0.198
HI
I 0.007 -0.000 -0.004 0.026 -0.038 0.015 -0.010 0.007 0.001 -0.014 0.562 0.236
T 0.000 0.012 -0.001 -0.008 0.019 -0.017 -0.015 0.040 -0.013 -0.005 -0.192 0.820
BY
I 0.002 0.001 -0.008 -0.020 -0.014 0.039 -0.011 0.035 -0.016 -0.009 0.211 0.628

Table 4.8: Correlation coefficient of grain yield and its component in check lines
T -0.846 0.161 -0.664 0.369 -0.446 0.252 0.176 0.114 -0.501 -0.898* -0.651 -0.911*
DF
I -0.958* -0.090 -0.810 0.521 0.001 -0.203 -0.711 0.228 -0.548 -0.280 -0.395 -0.301
T -0.299 0.625 -0.181 0.548 -0.428 0.083 -0.376 0.385 0.669 0.414 0.672
PH
I 0.057 0.768 -0.658 -0.151 -0.016 0.694 -0.387 0.414 0.228 0.289 0.232
T -0.337 0.554 -0.046 0.566 0.133 0.334 -0.501 -0.898* -0.651 -0.911*
PL
I -0.107 0.147 0.023 0.621 -0.396 0.707 0.448 0.556 0.519 0.563
FLL T -0.344 0.803 -0.195 -0.226 -0.021 0.385 0.669 0.414 0.672
I -0.193 0.427 0.110 0.831 -0.399 0.243 0.088 0.196 0.073
FLW T 0.256 -0.076 0.666 -0.382 0.175 0.160 0.103 0.129
I 0.800 0.508 -0.203 0.478 -0.069 0.111 -0.030 0.016
FLA T -0.204 0.171 -0.220 0.415 0.523 0.522 0.555
I 0.517 0.346 0.162 0.072 0.165 0.086 0.062
GL T -0.351 0.876 0.519 0.165 0.198 0.135
I -0.070 0.801 0.737 0.547 0.608 0.563
GW T -0.751 -0.656 -0.334 -0.413 -0.347

I -0.644 0.176 0.232 0.169 0.151
LB T 0.657 0.248 0.337 0.237
I 0.457 0.242 0.329 0.300
SI T 0.756 0.523 0.726
I 0.667 0.835 0.769
HI T 0.724 0.994*
I 0.837 0.958*
BY T 0.791
I 0.548

Table 4.12: Path coefficient analysis showing direct and indirect effects of different yield contributing character on yield in Check
lines
DF PH PL FLL FLW FLA GL GW LB SI HI BW
T 0.114 0.065 0.068 0.380 -0.222 -0.274 -0.014 0.022 -0.049 -0.259 -0.410 -0.244
DF
I 1.957 1.038 0.328 -3.719 -1.364 -0.001 -0.710 3.259 0.048 0.486 -1.708 1.055
T -0.097 -0.076 -0.126 -0.358 0.109 0.337 0.024 0.010 0.161 0.199 0.306 0.155
PH
I -1.087 -1.084 -0.208 3.525 1.721 0.015 -0.056 -3.181 -0.081 -0.367 1.386 -0.770
T 0.018 0.023 0.423 0.193 -0.334 -0.028 0.032 -0.016 -0.143 0.090 0.073 0.039
PL
I -0.175 -0.061 -3.656 -0.491 -0.384 -0.002 2.177 1.815 0.148 -0.397 3.386 -1.384
T -0.076 -0.048 -0.142 -0.573 0.208 0.494 0.011 -0.028 0.009 0.215 0.239 0.195
FLL
I -1.586 -0.832 0.391 4.591 0.504 -0.044 0.384 -3.807 -0.084 -0.215 0.535 -0.523
T 0.042 0.014 0.234 0.197 -0.603 0.157 0.004 0.082 0.164 -0.241 -0.152 -0.076
FLW
I 1.020 0.713 -0.537 -0.884 -2.616 -0.083 1.783 0.932 0.100 0.061 0.676 0.079
T -0.051 -0.042 -0.019 -0.460 -0.154 0.615 0.011 0.021 0.094 0.081 0.152 0.152
FLA
I 0.001 0.164 -0.083 1.958 -2.092 -0.103 1.814 -1.586 0.034 -0.064 1.006 -0.230
T 0.029 0.033 0.240 0.112 0.046 -0.125 -0.056 -0.043 -0.375 0.269 0.075 0.074
GL
I -0.397 0.017 -2.269 0.505 -1.329 -0.054 3.510 0.319 0.169 -0.654 3.335 -1.621
T 0.020 -0.006 0.056 0.129 -0.402 0.105 0.020 0.124 0.321 -0.340 -0.153 -0.155
GW
I -1.392 -0.752 1.448 3.813 0.532 -0.036 -0.244 -4.584 -0.136 -0.157 1.414 -0.451
T 0.013 0.029 0.141 0.231 0.012 -0.136 -0.049 -0.093 -0.428 0.340 0.113 0.126
LB
I 0.447 0.419 -2.584 -1.833 -1.251 -0.017 2.812 2.952 0.211 -0.406 1.475 -0.877
T -0.057 -0.029 0.074 -0.238 0.281 0.096 -0.029 -0.081 -0.281 0.517 0.346 0.195
SI
I -1.073 -0.449 -1.637 1.115 0.180 -0.008 2.588 -0.808 0.096 -0.888 4.065 -2.229
T -0.103 -0.051 0.068 -0.300 0.200 0.205 -0.009 -0.041 -0.106 0.391 0.457 0.271
HI
I -0.549 -0.247 -2.032 0.403 -0.290 -0.017 1.921 -1.064 0.051 -0.592 6.094 -2.233
T -0.074 -0.032 0.044 -0.299 0.123 0.250 -0.011 -0.051 -0.144 0.270 0.331 0.374
BY
I -0.774 -0.313 -1.897 0.901 0.078 -0.009 2.132 -0.774 0.069 -0.741 5.099 -2.669
TSD RESIDUAL EFFECT = 0.01 IRRIGAT ED RESIDUAL EFFECT = 0.01

Drought tolerance QTLs 2011

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Drought tolerance QTLs 2011

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

“EFFECT OF DROUGHT TOLERANT QTLs ON YIELD AND

YIELD CONTRIBUTING TRAITS UNDER MANAGED

M.Sc. (Ag.) THESIS

MANOJ KUMAR NARANG

DEPARTMENT OF GENETICS AND PLANT BREEDING

Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur (C.G)

MANOJ KUMAR NARANG

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE

Roll No. 12420 ID No. 110105044

This is to certify that the thesis entitled “EFFECT OF DROUGHT

TOLERANT QTLs ON YIELD AND YIELD CONTRIBUTING TRAITS

UNDER MANAGED WATER STRESS AS WELL AS NON STRESS

CONDITION” submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree

of “MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE” of the Indira Gandhi

Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur, (C.G.) is a record of the bonafide research

work carried out by MANOJ KUMAR NARANG under my guidance and

Committee and the Director of Instruction.

Date: Dr. S.B. Verulkar

THESIS APPROVED BY THE STUDENT’S ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Member : Dr. A.K. Sarawgi _____________________

Member : Dr.(Smt.) Arti Guhey _____________________

Member : Dr. R.R. Saxena _____________________

This is to certify that the thesis entitled “EFFECT OF DROUGHT

TOLERANT QTLs ON YIELD AND YIELD CONTRIBUTING TRAITS

UNDER MANAGED WATER STRESS AS WELL AS NON STRESS

CONDITION” submitted by Manoj Kumar Narang to the Indira Gandhi

Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Major Advisor ________________

Head of the Department ________________

Dean / Dean Faculty ________________

Director of Instructions ________________

Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding

College of Agriculture, Manoj Kumar Narang

CHAPTER PARTICULAR PAGE NO.

2.1 Impact of drought on yield and yield

2.2 Variability in rice for drought tolerance

2.3 Correlation of traits related to drought

2.4 Mechanism of drought tolerance

2.5 Heritability of traits related to drought

2.6 Genetic Variability

2.7 Correlation and Path Analysis

III MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Location and climate

3.2 Experimental details

3.3.1 field studies

3.5 Statistical analysis

3.5.1 Analysis of variance

3.5.2 Parameters of variations

3.6 Correlation coefficient analysis

3.7 Path analysis

IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 General observations

4.2.1 Analysis of variance

4.2.2 Drought Susceptibility Index

4.2.3 Mean and variability parameters

4.2.4 Genotypic and phenotypic coefficient of

4.2.5 Heritability and genetic advance

4.3 Correlation studies

4.4 Path analysis

4.5 Effect of QTLs for Yield and yield

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE

TABLE PARTICULARS PAGE

4.22 Mean performance and percent change in Seed Index in