J. Appl. Hort.

, 5(1):45-48, January-June, 2003

Selection parameters for genetic improvement in

Chenopodium grain yield in sodic soil

Atul Bhargava, Sudhir Shukla, R.S. Katiyar* and Deepak Ohri

Division of Genetics and Plant Breeding, *Banthra Research Station, National Botanical Research Institute,
Lucknow-226001, India

Abstract
A study was carried out to evaluate promising genotypes of Chenopodium quinoa on normal and sodic soil to compare the grain
yield potential, variability and genetic association among the different component traits and their direct and indirect effects on yield.
High heritability and moderate genetic advance was observed for inflorescence length and grain yield on sodic soil and for stem
diameter, primary branches/plant, number of inflorescence/plant, dry weight of plant and inflorescence length on normal soil. Stem
diameter and number of inflorescence/plant exhibited high direct path (0.837 and 0.761, respectively) and significant positive
association (0.979 and 0.967, respectively) with grain yield on sodic soil, while dry weight of plant showed high correlation (0.889)
and direct path (0.972) with grain yield on normal soil. The breeding strategies for genetical improvement in the crop grown on sodic
and normal soil have been discussed.

Key words: Quinoa, sodic soil, correlation, path analysis, heritability, genetic gain, additive gene.

Introduction Research Institute, Lucknow, which is situated at an altitude of 120

m above sea level at 26.5oN latitude and 80.5oE longitude. These
Chenopodium spp. have been cultivated for centuries as leafy
genotypes were also sown on sodic soil at Banthra Research
vegetable as well as an important subsidiary grain for human and
Station of N.B.R.I, which is located at 26o40’ to 26o45’N latitude
animal foodstuff due to high protein (10-14%) (DeBruin, 1964) and
and 80o45’ to 80o53’E longitude. The experimental site soil belongs
a balanced amino acid spectrum with high lysine (5.1-6.4%) and
to the family of Aeric Halaquepts having silty loam texture in the
methionine (0.4-1.0%) contents (Prakash and Pal, 1998).
surface with pH ranges from 8.6 to 10.0 and electrical conductivity
Chenopodium quinoa Willd. is a native of the Andean region and
(EC) seldom exceeding 2dSm-1. Soils are extremely saturated with
is a member of the subsection Cellulata of the section Chenopodium
exchangeable sodium having more than 25 ESP and predominant
of the genus Chenopodium. Quinoa belongs to the group of crops
in carbonate and bicarbonate ions. The genotypes were grown in
known as pseudocereals (Cusack, 1984; Koziol, 1993) that includes
two rows of 3m long with a row-to-row and plant-to-plant distance
other domesticated chenopods, amaranths and buckwheat.
of 45 cm and 15 cm, respectively at both the places. Normal cultural
Quinoa is a crop with a high level of resistance to several of the practices were followed from time to time. The data was recorded
predominant adverse factors like soil salinity, drought, frost, on 5 plants from each entry and replication for seven traits namely
diseases and pests (Jacobsen et al., 2001; Mujica et al., 2001) and plant height (cm), stem diameter (cm), primary branches/plant,
has attracted worldwide attention in this respect. Thus, the crop is number of inflorescence/plant, inflorescence length (cm), dry weight
of immense importance for the diversification of agriculture in fallow of plant (g) and grain yield/plant (g).
and uncultivated barren lands in India, a large amount of which is
Analysis of variance for each trait was done according to Panse
constituted by sodic soils. Seeing its recent demand and
and Sukhatme (1978) and phenotypic and genotypic coefficient of
importance, there is a definite need for its genetic improvement.
variation, heritability and genetic advance were computed following
Hence, the present investigation was carried out to evaluate the
Singh and Chaudhary (1985). The genotypic and phenotypic
promising genotypes of C. quinoa on normal and sodic soil as
correlations were computed as suggested by Mullar et al. (1958)
well as to ascertain its prospects of cultivation on saline soils and
and path coefficient as described by Dewey and Lu (1959).
marginal lands. Simultaneously, the study of genetic parameters,
correlation among the different traits and their direct and indirect
effects on yield have been done for the genetical improvement of
Results and discussion
its yield through yield contributing traits. The analysis of variance for all the traits showed significant
differences among the genotypes in both normal and sodic soil.
Materials and methods Variability studies: Plant height on sodic soil ranged from 42.67-
Eight exotic genotypes of Chenopodium quinoa (C. quinoa 56.66 cm, while on normal soil it was comparatively higher ranging
596498, C. quinoa 510537, C. quinoa 478414, C. quinoa 584524, C. from 81.60-110.30 cm with an average of 48.63+0.87 and 97.20+3.82,
quinoa 587173, C. quinoa 22158, C. quinoa 92/91, C. quinoa 71/ respectively. The grain yield/plant on sodic soil varied between
78) were sown in a randomized block design with three replications 8.95-16.69 g with a mean of 10.44+1.88, while on normal soil it was
in the crop year 2000-2001 on normal soil at National Botanical between 14.18-26.20 g with a mean of 19.16+1.60. Stem diameter
46 Selection parameters for genetic improvement in Chenopodium grain yield in sodic soil

Table 1. Mean, F value and range for different traits in C. quinoa grown on sodic and normal soil (in parenthesis)
Characters F value Mean +S.E. Range
Plant height (cm) 57.75(13.59) 48.63+0.87(97.20+3.82) 42.67-56.66(81.60-110.30)
Stem diameter (cm) 21.36(147.72) 1.70+0.04(1.33+0.06) 1.50-1.93(0.80-2.27)
Primary branches /plant 38.71(59.89) 18.08+0.39(25.94+1.22) 15.66-20.33(20.00-36.00)
Number of Inflorescence/plant 15.15(143.55) 17.91+0.66(68.79+1.91) 16.33-21.67(52.00-86.06)
Inflorescence length (cm) 11.22(13.16) 2.80+0.17(3.95+0.25) 2.33-3.33(3.00-4.76)
Dry weight of plant (g/plant) 19.10(16.30) 17.80+0.32(24.66+1.84) 17.00-19.67(18.00-34.00)
Grain yield(g/plant) 19.32(9.09) 10.44+1.88(19.16+1.60) 8.95-16.69(14.18-26.20)
Table 2. Genetic variability, heritability and genetic advance for different traits in C. quinoa grown on sodic and normal soil (in parenthesis)
Characters s2g s2p s2e GCV PCV Heritability Genetic Genetic
advance advance(%)
Plant height (cm) 21.65(91.84) 22.04(99.15) 0.38(7.30) 9.56(9.85) 9.65(10.24) 98.27(92.63) 9.50(19.00) 19.54(19.54)
Stem diameter (cm) 0.02(0.35) 0.02(0.36) 0.001(0.002) 8.54(44.96) 8.74(45.11) 95.31(99.32) 0.29(1.22) 17.17(92.31)
Primary branches/plant 2.95(43.88) 3.03(44.62) 0.07(0.74) 9.51(25.53) 9.63(25.75) 97.42(98.33) 3.49(13.53) 19.33(52.16)
Number of Inflorescence/plant 3.15(261.76) 3.38(263.60) 0.22(1.83) 9.92(23.51) 10.26(23.60) 93.40(99.30) 3.53(33.21) 19.75(48.27)
Inflorescence length (cm) 0.16(0.39) 0.17(0.42) 0.01(0.03) 14.26(15.90) 14.94(16.54) 91.09(92.40) 0.78(1.24) 28.04(31.50)
Dry weight of plant (g/plant) 0.98(26.08) 1.03(27.79) 0.05(1.70) 5.57(20.70) 5.72(21.37) 94.77(93.87) 1.99(10.19) 11.17(41.32)
Grain yield(g/plant) 17.61(12.27) 18.57(13.78) 0.96(1.51) 17.17(12.89) 17.63(13.67) 94.82(89.00) 8.41(6.80) 34.44(25.06)
s2g = Genotypic variance, s2p = Phenotypic variance, s2e = Environmental variance, PCV = Phenotypic coefficient of variation, GCV = Genotypic
coefficient of variation
had higher values on sodic soil (1.50-1.93 cm; mean 1.70+0.04) gene action is present. Genetic advance in a trait is a product of
than corresponding values at normal soil (0.80-2.27cm; mean heritability and selection differential and expressed in unit of
1.33+0.06). Number of inflorescence/plant showed low values on standard deviation, has an added advantage over heritability as
sodic soil (16.33-21.67 cm; mean 17.91+0.66) in comparison to a guiding factor in selection programmes, where improvement of
normal soil (52.00-86.06; mean 68.79+1.91). The range for primary characters is desired. Genetic gain on sodic soil was low in
branches/plant and dry weight was 15.66-20.33 and 17.00-19.67 comparison to the genetic gain on normal soil. Maximum genetic
g, respectively on sodic soil and 20.00-36.00 and 18.00-34.00 g on gain on sodic soil was observed for grain yield (34.44%), followed
normal soil. Inflorescence length on sodic soil was slightly lower by inflorescence length (28.04%), while minimum gain was
(2.33-3.33 cm; mean 2.80+0.17) than on normal soil (3.00-4.76 cm; observed for dry weight of plant (11.17%). Genetic gain on normal
mean 3.95+0.25) (Table 1). soil was maximum for stem diameter (92.31%), followed by primary
branches/plant (52.16%) and number of inflorescence/plant
Phenotypic coefficient of variation (PCV) was slightly higher (48.27%). The minimum value of genetic advance on normal soil
than corresponding GCV on both types of soils for all the traits was observed for plant height (19.54%). High heritability coupled
indicating that variability existed due to genotypic component. with moderate genetic advance was observed for inflorescence
Variability alone is not of much help in determining the heritable length and grain yield on sodic soil and for stem diameter, primary
portion of variation (Table 2). The amount of gain to be expected branches/plant, number of inflorescence/plant, dry weight of plant
from a selection can be obtained by the study of genotypic and inflorescence length on normal soil. It indicates that genotypic
coefficient of variability along with heritability. The heritability variance for these characters is probably due to additive gene
estimates were very high for all the traits studied in sodic as well effects. Hence, the selection based on phenotypic performance
as normal soil. Bhargava et al. (2003b) also obtained very high for these characters would be beneficial for achieving the desired
heritability values on normal soil, in the same crop for all the gain in C. quinoa.
traits studied. Heritability in sodic soil ranged from 91.09%
(inflorescence length) to 98.27% (plant height) while on normal Correlation studies: The estimates of correlation coefficients of
soil it ranged from 89.00% (grain yield) to 99.32% (stem diameter). agronomic traits with yield and among the traits themselves
provide a sound base for identification of traits for selection of
High heritability alone does not guarantee large gain from ideal plant types. Grain yield/plant on sodic soil was significantly
selection unless sufficient genetic gain attributable to additive positively associated with all the traits (Table 3) except for primary

Table 3. The genotypic correlation coefficients among 6 agronomic traits in C. quinoa grown on sodic and normal (in parenthesis) soil.
Characters Plant height Stem diameter Primary Number of Infloresence Dry weight of
(cm) (cm) branches/plant infloresence/plant length(cm) plant(g/plant)
Grain yield(g/plant) 0.875** (-0.764*) 0.979**(0.415) -0.797*(0.091) 0.989** (0.204) 0.762*(-0.754*) 0.967**(0.889*)
Plant height (cm) 0.895**(0.393) -0.647(0.635) 0.966** (0.274) 0.628(0.910**) 0.947**(-0.200)
Stem diameter (cm) -0.568 (0.958**) 0.982** (0.436) 0.888**(0.400) 0.872**(0.774*)
Primary branches/plant -0.777* (0.376) -0.045 (0.667) -0.909**(0.548)
Number of infl./ plant 0.744* (0.225) 0.997**(0.610)
Inflorescence length (cm) 0.532(0.367)
*, ** Significance at 5% and 1%, respectively.
 Selection parameters for genetic improvement in Chenopodium grain yield in sodic soil 47

Table 4. Path coefficient analysis for 6 agronomic traits of seed yield in C. quinoa grown on sodic and normal (in parenthesis) soils
Characters Plant height Stem diameter No.of primary No. of Inflorescence Dry weight Seed
(cm) (cm) branches Inflor. /plant length (cm) (g/plant) yield(g/plant)
Plant height (cm) -0.442(-0.586) 0.749(-0.166) 0.152(0.286) 0.735(-0.061) -0.098 (-0.041) -0.221(-0.195) 0.875**(-0.764*)
Stem diameter (cm) -0.396(-0.230) 0.837(-0.423) 0.134(0.432) 0.747(-0.097) -0.139 -(0.018) -0.203(0.752) 0.979**(0.415)
No.of primary branches 0.286(-0.372) -0.476(-0.406) -0.236(0.451) -0.591(-0.083) 0.007 (-0.030) 0.212(0.533) -0.797*(0.091)
No. of inflorescence/plant -0.427(-0.161) 0.822(-0.185) 0.183(0.169) 0.761(-0.223) -0.117 (0.010) -0.232(0.593) 0.989**(0.204)
Inflorescence length (cm) -0.277(-0.533) 0.744(-0.169) 0.010(0.301) 0.566(0.050) -0.157 (-0.045) -0.124(-0.357) 0.762*(-0.754*)
Dry weight of plant (g) -0.419(0.117) 0.730(-0.328) 0.214(0.247) 0.758(-0.136) -0.083(0.016) -0.233(0.972) 0.967**(0.889**)
*, ** Significance at 5% and 1% respectively. Inflor.=Inflorescence, No.= number
branches/plant, which was negatively correlated (-0.797). On stem diameter exhibited negative direct path (-0.423) with grain
normal soil seed yield was positively correlated with dry yield but was indirectly affected through dry weight of plant
weight of plant (0.889), while it was negatively correlated and primary branches/plant. Primary branches/plant showed
with plant height (-0.764) and inflorescence length (-0.754). negative path (-0.236) and significant negative correlation with
Significant correlation between seed yield and dry weight of plant grain yield on sodic soil, while on normal soil it showed positive
on normal soil in Chenopodium was also noticed earlier (Bhargava direct path with grain yield. Number of inflorescence/plant
et al., 2003a). Seed yield was significantly associated with dry showed highest significant genotypic association with grain yield
weight of plant on both the soils which indicated that yield could and high positive direct path (0.761) and was indirectly affected
be enhanced by making the selection of genotypes with high through stem diameter and primary branches/plant on sodic soil.
biomass. The genotypic values for plant height showed It is a general expectation that plants with larger number of
significant positive association with number of inflorescence/ inflorescence would give more yield. On the contrary, number of
plant (0.966), dry weight of plant (0.947) and stem diameter (0.895) inflorescence/plant showed negative direct path (-0.233) with
on sodic soil, while on normal soil only inflorescence length grain yield on normal soil, while indirectly affected through primary
(0.910) had significant positive correlation with plant height. It is branches/plant, inflorescence length and dry weight of plant. On
interesting to note that stem diameter was positively and sodic soil inflorescence length and dry weight of plant showed
significantly associated with dry weight of plant on both sodic significant positive association with grain yield but exhibited
and normal soils which is a general expectation that with increase negative direct path (-0.157 and –0.233, respectively). However,
in diameter, plant would be vigorous and will bear more number in these cases the negative direct path was nullified through the
of inflorescence and subsequently yield would be enhanced. positive indirect effect of stem diameter, number of inflorescence/
However, stem diameter on sodic soil also exhibited significant plant and primary branches/plant. On normal soil inflorescence
positive association with number of inflorescence/plant (0.982) length exhibited significant negative correlation and negative
path value (-0.045) with grain yield. Dry weight of plant had
and inflorescence length (0.888), while primary branches/plant
significant positive genotypic correlation and exhibited highest
(0.958) and dry weight of plant were significantly and positively
direct path (0.972) towards grain yield on normal soil which
correlated with stem diameter on normal soil. Primary branches/
confirms the findings of correlation.
plant was negatively correlated with inflorescence length,
inflorescence/plant and dry weight of plant on sodic soil, but on It is evident from the study that on sodic soil, selection of thick-
normal soil it showed positive association with all these characters. stemmed plants with more number of inflorescence/plant and
Number of inflorescence/plant showed significant positive high dry weight would be more desirable for breeding for high
association with inflorescence length and dry weight of plant on grain yield, selection of plants with high dry weight on normal
sodic soil. The positive and significant genotypic association of soil would be advantageous for enhancing grain yield in
all the traits with grain yield except primary branches/plant on Chenopodium.
sodic soil clearly indicated that all the traits under study were
strongly contributing towards yield. Hence, they could be of
great impetus towards enhancing grain yield.
References
Bhargava, Atul, S. Shukla and D. Ohri, 2003a. Genetic association in
Path studies: Correlation studies alone are often misleading Chenopodium. Indian Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding,
because two characters may show correlation because they are 63(3): 283-284.
correlated with a common third one (Jaiswal and Gupta, 1967). Bhargava, Atul, S. Shukla and D. Ohri, 2003b. Genetic variability in
So, in such situations it becomes necessary to study path Chenopodium. Ind. J. Pl. Gen. Res., (Communicated)
coefficient analysis, which takes into account the causal Cusack, D. 1984. Quinoa: Grain of the Incas. Ecologist, 14: 21-31.
relationship as well as the degree of relationship. Hence, the
DeBruin, A. 1964. Investigation of the food value of quinoa and canihua
genotypic correlations were partitioned into direct and indirect
seed. J. Food Sci., 29: 872-876.
effects to know the relative importance of the components.
Dewey, D.R. and K.H. Lu, 1959. A correlation and path coefficient
Plant height showed negative path with grain yield both on analysis of components of crested wheat grass seed production.
sodic and normal soils (Table 4). On sodic soil, stem diameter Agronomy J., 51: 515-518.
showed strong positive correlation and highest direct path Jacobsen, S.E., H. Quispe and A. Mujica, 2001. Quinoa: An alternative
(0.837) with grain yield. Stem diameter was negatively indirectly crop for saline soils in the Andes. In: Scientist and Farmer-Partners
associated with all the traits except primary branches/plant and in Research for the 21st Century. CIP Program Report 1999-2000,
number of inflorescence/plant. On the contrary, on normal soil, pp. 403-408.
48 Selection parameters for genetic improvement in Chenopodium grain yield in sodic soil

Jaiswal, S.V. and V.P. Gupta, 1967. Selection criteria in improving erect Estimates of genotypic and environmental variances and covariances
type of groundnut. Journal of Research, Punjab University, 4: 188- in upland cotton and their implications in selection. Agronomy J.,
191. 50: 126-131.
Koziol, M.J. 1993. Quinoa: A potential new oil crop. In: Janick, J., Panse, V.G. and P.V. Sukhatme, 1978. Statistical methods for Agricultural
Simon, J.E. (Ed.), New Crops. Wiley, New York. Pp. 328-336. Workers. ICAR, New Delhi.
Mujica, A., S.E. Jacobsen and J. Ezquierdo, 2001. Resistencia a factores Prakash, D. and M. Pal, 1998. Chenopodium: seed protein, fractionation
adversos de la quinua. In: Mujica, A., Jacobsen, S.E., Ezquierdo, J., and amino acid composition. Intern. J. Food Sci. Nutrition, 49: 271-
Marathee, J.P. (Ed.), Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.)- 275.
Ancestral cultivo andino, alimento del presente y futuro. FAO, Singh, R.K. and B.D. Chaudhary, 1985. Biometrical methods in
UNA-Puno, CIP, Santiago, Chile Pp. 162-183. Quantitative Genetic Analysis. Ed. 3, Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi.
Mullar, P.A., J. Williams, H.F. Robinson and R.E. Comstock, 1958. pp. 53-54.