Next Article in Journal
Energy, Production and Environmental Characteristics of a Conventional Weaned Piglet Farm in North West Spain
Next Article in Special Issue
Identification of Non-Pleiotropic Loci in Flowering and Maturity Control in Soybean
Previous Article in Journal
Humboldtian Diagnosis of Peach Tree (Prunus persica) Nutrition Using Machine-Learning and Compositional Methods
Previous Article in Special Issue
Past, Present and Future Perspectives on Groundnut Breeding in Burkina Faso
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Integration of Extra-Large-Seeded and Double-Podded Traits in Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)

1
Department of Field Crops, Faculty of Agriculture, Akdeniz University, 07070 Antalya, Turkey
2
Department of Plant Protection, Faculty of Agriculture, Kirsehir Ahi Evran University, 40200 Kirsehir, Turkey
3
Department of Plant Protection, Faculty of Agriculture, Akdeniz University, 07070 Antalya, Turkey
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2020, 10(6), 901; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10060901
Submission received: 1 June 2020 / Revised: 17 June 2020 / Accepted: 22 June 2020 / Published: 24 June 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Genetics, Genomics, and Breeding of Legume Crops)

Abstract

:
A large seed size in the kabuli chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is important in the market not only due to its high price but also for its superior seedling vigor. The double-podded chickpea has a considerable yield and stability advantage over the single-podded chickpea. The study aimed at (i) integrating extra-large-seeded and double-podded traits in the kabuli chickpea, (ii) increasing variation by transgressive segregations and (iii) estimating the heritability of the 100-seed weight along with important agro-morphological traits in F2 and F3 populations. For these objectives, the large-seeded chickpea, Sierra, having a single pod and unifoliolate leaves, was crossed with the small-seeded CA 2969, having double pods and imparipinnate leaves. The inheritance pattern of the extra-large-seeded trait was polygenically controlled by partial dominant alleles. Transgressive segregations were found for all agro-morphological traits. Some progeny with 100-seed weights of ≥55 g and two pods had larger seed sizes than those of the best parents. As outputs of the epistatic effect of the double-podded gene in certain genetic backgrounds, three or more flowers or pods were found in some progeny. Progeny having imparipinnate leaves or two or more pods should be considered in breeding, since they had higher numbers of pods and seeds per plant and seed yields than their counterparts.

1. Introduction

The domesticated chickpea, Cicer arietinum L., is not only an important food legume but is also one of the most important crops on the basis of drought resistance [1,2,3]. It is used as a cash crop in trade, having a high level of protein in its seeds, a rotation crop due to its ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen to soil, and a cover crop in sustainable agriculture [4,5,6]. Globally, it has the widest sowing area among cool season food legumes, with a 17.8 million ha cultivation area in 2018 [7].
The domesticated chickpea is well-defined in two classes as “macrosperma” or “kabuli” and “microsperma” or “desi” according to the pigmentation of the plant, the flower and the seed size, shape and color. The plants in the former class do not possess pigment on the vegetative green parts and flowers, and these plants generally produce larger cream and whitish-cream seeds. On the other hand, the plants of the latter class possess pigments with purple-pink and pinkish-blue flowers, and these generally produce smaller seeds with an angular and rough appearance with different colors including brown, black and green [8,9]. Seed size and color are important criteria in the market [10]. The seed size in chickpeas is referred to as the single seed weight [11,12], 100-seed weight [13] and scale of the sieve size in mm [14,15]. In “kabuli” chickpeas, three distinct seed shapes have been recognized—ram-headed, owl-headed and pea-shaped [16]—and chickpeas with ram-head-shaped seeds generally have the largest seed size, as high as 60 g ≥ per 100-seed weight [17,18]. Seed size in chickpeas is not only governed by genetic factors but also affected by environment [9,12,19], generally having a high heritability [9,20]. Farmers (producers) prefer to produce large-seeded chickpeas due to consumer preference, since a larger seed size commands a higher price in regional and international markets [21,22,23]. In addition to a higher price, a large seed size confers an advantage during germination, higher seedling vigor, allowing deeper sowing than that of small seeds in order to escape drought [24]. Large seed size has therefore been considered to be a noteworthy trait in breeding programs [12]. To investigate the genetics of large seed size, several studies have been carried out from the 1950s to date [13,25,26,27,28,29]. The inheritance of seed size was determined as monogenic, digenic and polygenic [12,13,29,30,31,32,33]. Seed size in chickpeas was mapped using recombinant inbred lines (RILs) and some quantitative trait loci (QTL), and candidate genes were located in LG1, LG2, LG4, LG5, LG6, LG7 and LG8 [32,34,35,36,37].
Like large seed size, the double-podded trait in chickpea is a significant trait for increasing yield [20,38,39,40,41] and seed yield stability [42,43]. It was first described in a mutant desi chickpea in the 1930s and was determined to be governed by a single recessive gene “s” or “sfl” [9,44]. QTLs were identified on LG 4 and LG 6 [45,46,47,48,49]. For the integration of the gene conferring the double-podded trait, interspecific and intraspecific crosses in chickpeas were made [40,42,43,48,49] and transgressive segregations were reported for quantitative traits [20,41,50]. Progeny in segregated populations having higher or lower values than their parents are transgressive segregations [51]. Some example studies on the “kabuli” chickpea have not only been conducted to increase seed size [52,53] but also integrated with resistance to ascochyta blight, caused by Ascochyta rabiei (Pass.) Labr. [54]. Thus, some improved cultivars have been described [55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62]. None of these studies have reported the integration of a large seed size and the double-podded trait. Therefore, the present study aims (i) to integrate extra-large-seeded and double-podded traits in the “kabuli” chickpea, (ii) to increase variation by transgressive segregations in intraspecific crosses and (iii) to estimate the heritability of 100-seed weight along with important agro-morphological traits.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Parents in Intraspecific Crosses

The female parent Sierra (PI 631078) is an extra-large-seeded “kabuli” chickpea improved by USDA-ARS in cooperation with the Washington Agricultural Research Center, Pullman, WA based on a large seed size and resistance to ascochyta blight. Sierra was derived from F8 of a three-way cross, “Dwelley”//FLIP 85-58C/Spanish or Mexican White, and released according to pedigree breeding in 2004. Its prominent plant traits were reported to be a plant height of 53 cm, branching at the base, a simple or unifoliolate leaf, a single flower per axil and a 100-seed weight of 61.4 g [55]. The pollen donor parent CA 2969 (PI632396) is also a “kabuli” chickpea developed by CIFA, Cordoba, Spain since it has a good resistance to ascochyta blight. It was selected from [CA 2156/JG 62 (PI 439821)]//ILC 3279 (PI 471915). CA 2156, JG 62 (ICC 5149) and ILC 3279 are large-seeded, double pods and resistant to ascochyta blight, respectively. CA 2969 possesses imparipinnate or fern-like (normal) leaves, double pods per axil and a seed weight of 30.1 g per 100 seeds [63]. The leaves and flowers of Sierra and CA 2969 are shown in Figure 1.
As reported by Auckland and van der Maesen [64], flowers of the female Sierra were emasculated at early morning and then pollinations were done using flowers of the pollen donor CA 2969 within one hour at the campus of Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey (30°38′ E, 36°53′ N, 51 m above sea level). F1, F2 and F3 plants were grown as single plant progeny and individually harvested in 2017, 2018 and 2019, respectively. The present study consists of F1 progeny and F2 and F3 populations.

2.2. Agronomic Applications

Parents and progeny were planted in rows spaced 50 cm apart with a within-row plant spacing of 10 cm. The parent plants were grown as four replicates (about 40 plants), while F1, F2 and F3 progeny were grown as progeny rows in the same field. F1 progeny and the F2 population were grown under rainfed conditions, while drip irrigation was used for the F3 population. Weeds were controlled by hand during the seedling and before the flowering stages. No input such as fertilization was used.

2.3. Soil Properties

Soil in the experimental area was sampled between 0 and 30 cm and then analyzed to determine the experimental soil traits. Some plant nutrition elements were found to be at a sufficient level, while organic matter and nitrogen were determined to be at low levels. Like organic matter and nitrogen, iron and zinc levels were considered to be possibly deficient due to high pH. The soil texture was loam, with a CaCO3 content of 26.5%, whereas the pH was high, at 7.69.

2.4. Weather Conditions

When the growing periods of F1, F2 and F3 were considered, from February to July, the total precipitation in 2017, 2018 and 2019 was recorded as 405.7 mm, 545.1 mm and 653.1 mm, respectively. The extreme maximum temperatures during the flowering stage, when the F1, F2 and F3 progeny were grown, were 33.9, 32.4 and 31.9 °C, respectively, whereas during the pod formation stage, they were 44.8, 38.9 and 39.7 °C, respectively (Table S1). Due to the sudden increase in extreme temperature (38.9 °C) during the pod setting (Table S1), a considerable number of progeny produced empty pods.

2.5. Data Collection

The days to first flowering and days to 50% flowering were recorded as phenological traits, whereas the plant height, first pod height, number of main stems, pods and seeds per plant, seed yield per plant, seed weight or seed size, number of pods per axil (as single or double pods) and leaf shape (as fern-like or unifoliolate leaves) were recorded as agro-morphological traits of each parent and progeny. The seed size in the present study as hereafter referred to is the 100-seed weight, determined by using following formula [13,33]:
100-seed weight (g) = [Total seed weight per plant (g)/Total number of seeds per plant] × 100

2.6. Data Analyses

All the agro-morphological data were analyzed to determine descriptive statistics using the MINITAB 17 software [65]. Transgressive segregations, the progeny with higher or lower values than those of their parents in the F2 and F3 populations, were determined using minimum and maximum values of the F2 and F3 populations. Besides, progeny in the F2 and F3 populations were divided into four classes to compare agro-morphological traits, as (i) imparipinnate leaf and single-podded, (ii) imparipinnate leaf and double-podded, (iii) unifoliolate leaf and sing-podded and (iv) unifoliolate leaf and double-podded.
Narrow-sense heritability ( h 2 ) in the F2 population was estimated using progeny–parent regression according to Poehlman and Sleper [66]:
h 2 = b ,
b = ( X X ¯ )   ( Y Y ¯ ) / ( X X ¯ ) 2 ,
where b is the regression coefficient, and X, Y, X ¯ and Y ¯ are the values and means for the progeny and parents, respectively.
The chi-square test ( χ 2 ) [67] was used to test the goodness of fit to the expected 9:3:3:1 ratio of segregation in the F2 populations:
χ 2 = ( O E ) 2 E ,
where O and E are the observed and expected values, respectively.

3. Results

3.1. F1 Progeny and F2 and F3 Populations

In F1, negative selection was applied for untrue hybrids according to dominant morphological traits such as a single pod per axil and imparipinnate leaf shape. Hence, progeny with unifoliolate leaves due to selfing such as the female Sierra were discarded from rows in 2017. The true F1 had imparipinnate leaves and produced single flowers and pods per axil. Fifty-one F1 progeny were produced from intraspecific crosses between Sierra and CA 2969 in 2017. Each F1 progeny had about 18 seeds per plant. Thus, a total 915 progeny were sown in F2 in 2018. F1 plants were single-podded with imparipinnate leaves, while F2 plants segregated as imparipinnate leaves and a single-podded, imparipinnate leaves and double-podded, unifoliolate leaves and single-podded, and unifoliolate leaves and double-podded. The segregation was found to be a good fit to a 9:3:3:1 ratio (Table 1).

3.2. Transgressive Segregations

According to data analyses to determine descriptive statistics in the F2 and F3 populations, transgressive segregations were found for all the agro-morphological traits, including 100-seed weight (Table 2 and Table 3). The minimum and maximum values of the days to the first flowering of the F2 population were found to be 45 days and 66 days, respectively, whereas the days to 50% flowering in the F2 population ranged from 45 days to 75 days, respectively (Table 2). The days to the first flowering and days to 50% flowering of Sierra and CA 2969 were 48 and 50 days and 50 and 52 days, respectively. The plant height of the F2 population varied from 17 cm to 59 cm, whereas the plant heights of Sierra and CA 2969 were 41 cm and 34.3 cm, respectively. The mean first pod height in the F2 population was 31.7 cm, whereas it was 21 cm for Sierra and 19.7 cm for CA 2969. The mean number of main stems per plant in the F2 population was 2.3, while it was 2.7 in Sierra and 2.3 in CA 2969. The number of pods per plant in the F2 population ranged from 1 to 25, whereas the number of pods per plant was 5.2 in Sierra and 3 in CA 2969. The number of seeds per plant in the F2 population ranged from 1 to 24, whereas the means of this trait were 4.2 in Sierra and 11.7 in CA 2969. The seed yield per plant was recorded as 0.1–7 g in the F2 population, but it was 1.8 in Sierra and 3.7 in CA 2969. As for the 100-seed weight, this ranged from 9.5 g to 69 g in the F2 population, while the 100-seed weights of Sierra and CA 2969 were 49.9 g and 31 g, respectively (Table 2).
The minimum and maximum values of the days to the first flowering of the F3 population were between 36 and 75 days, whereas the days to 50% flowering ranged from 38 days to 82 days (Table 3). The plant height varied from 19 cm to 68 cm, whereas the plant heights of Sierra and CA 2969 were 52.3 cm and 42.7 cm, respectively. The first pod height ranged from 13 cm to 46 cm, whereas it was 31.3 cm for Sierra and 33.3 cm for CA 2969. The number of main stems ranged from 1 to 6, whereas it was found to be 2.3 in both Sierra and CA 2969. The number of pods per plant varied from 1 to 254, whereas it was 36.7 in Sierra and 42.7 in CA 2969. The number of seeds per plant ranged from 1 to 267, whereas the means of this trait were 32.7 in Sierra and 50.7 in CA 2969. The seed yield per plant was between 0.1 and 79 g, but it was 15.2 g in Sierra and 13.9 g in CA 2969. As the seed size in the F3 population, the 100-seed weight ranged from 7 g to 64 g, while it was 46.9 g in Sierra and 27.4 g in CA 2969 (Table 3).

3.3. Comparisons of Number of Pods per Node and Leaf Shapes

The numbers of pods, seeds per plant and seed yields were higher in the double-podded progeny than those in the single-podded ones, while the 100-seed weight was higher in the single-podded progeny than that in the double-podded progeny (Table 2 and Table 3). Progeny having unifoliolate leaves had higher plant heights, first pod heights and numbers of main stems per plant than those of progeny having imparipinnate leaves (Table 2 and Table 3).

3.4. Inheritance of Seed Size and Agro-Morphological Traits

The narrow-sense heritability for the days to first flowering; days to 50% flowering; plant height; first pod height; numbers of main stems, pods and seeds per plant; and seed yield per plant were estimated to be 0.80, 0.80, 0.43, 0.65, 0.38, 0.49, 0.66, and 0.60, respectively (Table 2). The narrow-sense heritability for the 100-seed weight was found to be h 2 = 0.45. The inheritance pattern of the 100-seed weight was found to be polygenic and governed by partial dominant genes in the present population (Figure 2).

4. Discussion

Agro-morphological traits were negatively affected by drought and heat stress (Table 1), since the progeny from F1 to F2 were not only grown under rainfed conditions without using inputs but they were also grown in low-quality organic matter and nitrogen. However, the F3 progeny had higher yields and more pods and seeds per plant than those of the F1 and F2 progeny, due to irrigation (Table 2 and Table 3). The domesticated chickpea prefers to grow at temperatures of less than 30 °C [2,8,24], because heat stress may trigger drought stress, which is the major reason for the shedding of flowers.
All the progeny in F1 had imparipinnate leaves and a single flower or pod per axil as in the male parent CA 2969, indicating that imparipinnate leaves and a single flower or pod per axil were dominant over unifoliolate leaves and double flowers or pods per axil. The F2 progeny segregated by leaf shape and the number of pods per axil. With a non-significant χ 2 value ( χ 2 = 8.25 < p 0.05), the segregation ratio was found to be a good fit to a ratio of 9 (imparipinnate leaf and single-podded):3 (imparipinnate leaf and double-podded):3 (unifoliolate leaf and single-podded):1 (unifoliolate leaf and double-pooded). The inheritance of leaf shape in domesticated chickpeas in the present study was in agreement with the results of studies [9,68,69,70,71]. As in the present study, the presence of double pods per axil was governed by a recessive single gene [9,39,40,42]. Once progeny in the F2 and F3 populations having two pods per axil are selected for this unique trait, this trait, controlled by a single recessive gene, will not segregate in later generations [9].
Transgressive segregations were found for all the agro-morphological traits (Table 2 and Table 3) and the 100-seed weight in F2 (Figure 2) and F3 (Figure 3). Among the progeny, 30 progeny in the F2 population had a higher 100-seed weight than that of the best parent Sierra, which had a 49.9 g one (Figure 2). A total of 131 progeny in the F3 population had a 100-seed weight higher than 50 g (Table 3). Some of them had produced two pods and extra-large seed sizes as large as 63 g (Figure 3). Transgressive segregations were considered to be derived from the complementary action of genes and the expression of suppressed recessive genes in the parents [20,41,50,51]. As promising progeny, extra-large-seeded progeny with two or three pods per axil were isolated in F3 (Figure 3 and Figure 4). As outputs of the epistatic effect of the double-podded trait in a different background, three or more flowers or pods per axil were discovered in some progeny (Figure 4).
Single-podded progeny had larger seed sizes than double-podded progeny, while double-podded progeny had higher seed yields, numbers of pods and numbers of seeds per plant than single-podded progeny (Table 2 and Table 3). The triple-flowered trait (sflt) in the domestic chickpea is controlled by a single recessive gene. The double-flowered trait (sfld) is dominant over the triple-flowered trait, and the dominance relationship of these alleles at the Sfl locus was reported to be Sfl (single flower) > sfld (double flower) > sflt (triple flower) [44].
Progeny having imparipinnate leaves had higher seed yields than those of progeny having unifoliolate leaves (Table 2 and Table 3). This result was in agreement with the findings of Abbo et al. [72] in chickpeas having compound leaves. Additionally, progeny having imparipinnate leaves attained more pods and seeds per plant and higher 100-seed weights than those of unifoliolate progeny (Table 2 and Table 3). The higher seed yields and larger seed sizes of the progeny having imparipinnate leaves may stem from the wider photosynthetic area of the progeny having imparipinnate leaves than their counterparts. Abbo et al. [72] indicated that compound leaf lines of chickpeas attained higher leaf area indices at both low and high sowing densities.
Regarding seed size, the 100-seed weight had one of the smallest values of narrow-sense heritability, at h2 = 0.45, showing that the 100-seed weight was one of the most affected agro-morphological traits by genotype-by-environment or genotype-by-year interactions. When considering the environment, heat and drought stress (Table 1) had the greatest effects on seed size (Table 2 and Table 3). In the present study, the inheritance pattern for the 100-seed weight was revealed to be polygenic due to continuous distribution (Figure 2). Most of the progeny in F2 had higher 100-seed weights than that 100-seed weight of the parent CA 2969 (Figure 2), indicating that partial dominant genes played a crucial role in the inheritance of 100-seed weight. Without reciprocal crosses, it was hard to say, despite the fact that the cytoplasmic effect of the female parent might have dominated the large seed size, since most of the progeny produced heavier seeds than those of the smallest-seeded parent CA 2969 (Figure 2). In the present study, seed size was not divided into classes as small, medium and large according to preference. In inheritance studies on seed size in domesticated chickpeas, inheritance was reported as being monogenic [13], digenic [12,13,32,73] and polygenic [27,29,30,31,33]. The main reason for these differences stems from the phenotypic preference used by researchers. Although maternal genetic effects were not found on the inheritance of seed size in the domesticated chickpea by Upadhyaya et al. [12], it was suggested that the female parent should have a large seed size to increase seed size in the chickpea [74]. Small seed size in chickpeas was dominant over large seed size and controlled by two genes [32,73]. By contrast, normal seed size was dominant over small seed size [12]. In interspecific reciprocal backcrosses, Ceylan et al. [74] indicated that seed size and yield components could be improved by using the domesticated chickpea as female. As a polygenic trait, seed size was governed by both additive and dominant genes [14,27], as in the present study (Figure 3).

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, the inheritance pattern of the extra-large-seeded trait in the domesticated chickpea was polygenic and controlled by partial dominant alleles or might have been affected by the female parent. Not only the 100-seed weight but also the days to the first flowering, days to 50% flowering, plant height, first pod height, number of pods and seeds per plant and seed yield per plant in the F2 and F3 populations were found as transgressive segregations, revealing that the seed size in chickpeas could be improved by crossing suitable parents. Double-podded progeny had higher seed yields and numbers of pods and seeds per plant than those of single-podded ones, while single-podded progeny had larger seed sizes than those of double-podded progeny. Progeny having imparipinnate leaves attained higher seed yields than those of progeny having unifoliolate leaves. Extra-large seeds of ≥55 g and two pods per axil traits were assembled in a considerable number of progeny in F2 and F3. With the epistatic effect of the double-podded gene in certain genetic backgrounds, three pods per axil were present in some progeny. Progeny having imparipinnate leaves double or more pods should be considered in breeding programs because these progeny had higher numbers of pods and seeds per plant and seed yields than their counterparts. Extra-large-seeded and double-podded traits can be integrated with intraspecific crossing when suitable “kabuli” chickpeas are crossed.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/10/6/901/s1. Table S1: Monthly rainfall, relative humidity and extreme maximum and minimum temperatures during progeny growing seasons from F1 to F3.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.T.; methodology, K.G.K. and T.E.; software, H.S.; validation, T.E.; formal analysis, H.S.; investigation, K.G.K. and T.E.; resources, C.T.; data curation, D.S.; writing—original draft preparation, C.T.; writing—review and editing, D.S., B.A., K.A. and M.C.; visualization, H.S.; supervision, C.T.; project administration, C.T.; funding acquisition, C.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by TUBITAK, grant number 219O111.

Acknowledgments

We are thankful to Fred J. Muehlbauer (Washington State University, Pullman, WA) and J. Gil (Universidad de Cordoba, Cordoba, Spain) for providing seeds of chickpeas. C.T. thanks Mehmet Tekin and Alper Adak.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Toker, C.; Yadav, S.S. Legumes cultivars for stress environments. In Climate Change and Management of Cool Season Grain Legume Crops; Yadav, S.S., McNeil, D.L., Redden, R., Patil, S.A., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2011; pp. 351–376. [Google Scholar]
  2. Devasirvatham, V.; Tan, D.K.Y. Impact of high temperature and drought stresses on chickpea production. Agronomy 2018, 8, 145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Gaur, P.M.; Samineni, S.; Thudi, M.; Tripathi, S.; Sajja, S.B.; Jayalakshmi, V.; Mannur, D.M.; Vijayakumar, A.G.; Ganga Rao, N.V.; Ojiewo, C.; et al. Integrated breeding approaches for improving drought and heat adaptation in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Plant Breed. 2019, 138, 389–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Ahmad, M.; Naseer, I.; Hussain, A.; Mumtaz, M.Z.; Mustafa, A.; Hilger, T.H.; Zahir, Z.A.; Xu, M. Appraising Endophyte–Plant symbiosis for improved growth, nodulation, nitrogen fixation and abiotic stress tolerance: An experimental investigation with chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Agronomy 2019, 9, 621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Latati, M.; Dokukin, P.; Aouiche, A.; Rebouh, N.Y.; Takouachet, R.; Hafnaoui, E.; Hamdani, F.Z.; Bacha, F.; Ounane, S.M. Species interactions improve above-ground biomass and land use efficiency in intercropped wheat and chickpea under low soil inputs. Agronomy 2019, 9, 765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Soe, K.M.; Htwe, A.Z.; Moe, K.; Tomomi, A.; Yamakawa, T. Diversity and effectivity of indigenous Mesorhizobium strains for chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) in Myanmar. Agronomy 2020, 10, 287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Food and Agriculture Organization Statistical Databases (FAOSTAT). Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC (accessed on 13 May 2020).
  8. Van der Maessen, L.J.G. Cicer L. a Monograph of the Genus, with Special Reference to the Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.), Its Ecology and Cultivation. Ph.D. Thesis, Veenman, Utrecht, The Nederland, 1972. [Google Scholar]
  9. Muehlbauer, F.J.; Singh, K.B. Genetics of chickpea. In The Chickpea; Saxena, M.C., Singh, K.B., Eds.; CAB Int.: Wallingford, CT, USA, 1987; pp. 99–125. [Google Scholar]
  10. Regan, K.; MacLeod, B.; Siddique, K. Production packages for kabuli chickpea in Western Australia (No. 117); Farm Note; The University of Western Australia: Perth, Australia, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  11. Abbo, S.; Grusak, M.A.; Tzuk, T.; Reifen, R. Genetic control of seed weight and calcium concentration in chickpea seed. Plant Breed. 2000, 119, 427–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Upadhyaya, H.D.; Kumar, S.; Gowda, C.L.L.; Singh, S. Two major genes for seed size in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Euphytica 2006, 147, 311–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Sundaram, P.; Samineni, S.; Sajja, S.B.; Roy, C.; Singh, S.P.; Joshi, P.; Gaur, P.M. Inheritance and relationships of flowering time and seed size in kabuli chickpea. Euphytica 2019, 215, 144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Bicer, B.T.; Sakar, D. Heritability and gene effects for yield and yield components in chickpea. Hereditas 2008, 145, 220–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bicer, B.T. The effect of seed size on yield and yield components of chickpea and lentil. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2009, 8. [Google Scholar]
  16. Singh, K.B. Chickpea breeding. In The Chickpea; Saxena, M.C., Singh, K.B., Eds.; CAB Int.: Wallingford, CT, USA, 1987; pp. 127–162. [Google Scholar]
  17. Singh, B.D.; Jaiswal, H.K.; Singh, R.M.; Singh, A.K. Isolation of early-flowering recombinants from the interspecific cross between Cicer arietinum and Cicer reticulatum. Int. Chickpea Newslett. 1984, 11, 14–16. [Google Scholar]
  18. Pundir, R.P.S.; Reddy, K.N.; Mengesha, M.H. ICRISAT Chickpea Germplasm Catalog: Evaluation and Analysis; ICRISAT: Patancheru, India, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  19. Toker, C. Estimate of heritabilities and genotype by environment interactions for 100-seed weight, days to flowering and plant height in kabuli chick-peas (Cicer arietinum L.). Turk. J. Field Crop. 1998, 3, 16–20. [Google Scholar]
  20. Koseoglu, K.; Adak, A.; Sari, D.; Sari, H.; Ceylan, F.O.; Toker, C. Transgressive segregations for yield criteria in reciprocal interspecific crosses between Cicer arietinum L. and C. reticulatum Ladiz. Euphytica 2017, 213, 116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Dusunceli, F.; Wood, J.A.; Gupta, A.; Yadav, M.; Yadav, S.S. International trade. In Chickpea Breeding and Management; Yadav, S.S., Redden, R.J., Chen, W., Sharma, B., Eds.; CAB Int.: Wallingford, CT, USA, 2007; pp. 555–575. [Google Scholar]
  22. Gaur, P.M.; Singh, M.K.; Samineni, S.; Sajja, S.B.; Jukanti, A.K.; Kamatam, S.; Varshney, R.K. Inheritance of protein content and its relationships with seed size, grain yield and other traits in chickpea. Euphytica 2016, 209, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Muehlbauer, F.J.; Sarker, A. Economic Importance of Chickpea: Production, Value, and World Trade. In The Chickpea Genome; Varshney, R.K., Thudi, M., Muehlbauer, F.J., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 5–12. [Google Scholar]
  24. Toker, C.; Lluch, C.; Tejera, N.A.; Serraj, R.; Siddique, K.H.M. Abiotic stresses. In Chickpea Breeding and Management; Yadav, S.S., Redden, R.J., Chen, W., Sharma, B., Eds.; CAB International: Wallingford, CT, USA, 2007; pp. 474–496. [Google Scholar]
  25. Balasubrahmanyan, R. The association of size and colour in gram (Cicer arietinum L.). Curr. Sci. 1950, 19, 246–247. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  26. Malhotra, R.S.; Singh, K.B. Detection of epistasis in chickpea. Euphytica 1989, 40, 169–172. [Google Scholar]
  27. Singh, O.; Gowda, C.L.L.; Sethi, S.C.; Dasgupta, T.; Smithson, J.B. Genetic analysis of agronomic characters in chickpea. Theor. Appl. Genet. 1992, 83, 956–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Singh, O.; Gowda, C.L.L.; Sethi, S.C.; Dasgupta, T.; Kumar, J.; Smithson, J.B. Genetic analysis of agronomic characters in chickpea. II. Estimates of genetic variances from line× tester mating designs. Theor. Appl. Genet. 1993, 85, 1010–1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kumar, S.; Singh, O. Inheritance of seed size in chickpea. J. Genet. Breed. 1995, 49, 99–103. [Google Scholar]
  30. Malhotra, R.S.; Bejiga, G.; Singh, K.B. Inheritance of seed size in chickpea. J. Genet. Breed. 1997, 51, 45–50. [Google Scholar]
  31. Hovav, R.; Upadhyaya, K.C.; Beharav, A.; Abbo, S. Major flowering time gene and polygene effects on chickpea seed weight. Plant Breed. 2003, 122, 539–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hossain, S.; Ford, R.; McNeil, D.; Pittock, C.; Panozzo, J.F. Inheritance of Seed Size in Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) and Identification of QTL Based on 100-seed Weight and Seed Size Index. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 2010, 4, 126. [Google Scholar]
  33. Sharma, S.; Upadhyaya, H.D.; Gowda, C.L.L.; Kumar, S.; Singh, S. Genetic analysis for seed size in three crosses of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Can. J. Plant Sci. 2013, 93, 387–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Cobos, M.J.; Rubio, J.; Fernández-Romero, M.D.; Garza, R.; Moreno, M.T.; Millán, T.; Gil, J. Genetic analysis of seed size, yield and days to flowering in a chickpea recombinant inbred line population derived from a Kabuli × Desi cross. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2007, 151, 33–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Verma, S.; Gupta, S.; Bandhiwal, N.; Kumar, T.; Bharadwaj, C.; Bhatia, S. High-density linkage map construction and mapping of seed trait QTLs in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) using genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS). Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 17512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Singh, V.K.; Khan, A.W.; Jaganathan, D.; Thudi, M.; Roorkiwal, M.; Takagi, H.; Sutton, T. QTL-seq for rapid identification of candidate genes for 100-seed weight and root/total plant dry weight ratio under rainfed conditions in chickpea. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2016, 14, 2110–2119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Lal, D.; Ravikumar, R.L. Development of Genetic Linkage Map and Identification of QTLs for Agronomic Traits in Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci. 2018, 7, 66–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sheldrake, A.R.; Saxena, N.P.; Krishnamurthy, L. The expression and influence on yield of the ‘double-podded ’ character in chickpeas (Cicer arietinum L.). Field Crops Res. 1978, 1, 243–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Kumar, J.; Srivastava, R.K.; Ganesh, M. Penetrance and expressivity of the gene for double podding in chickpea. J. Hered. 2000, 91, 234–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Yasar, M.; Ceylan, F.O.; Ikten, C.; Toker, C. Comparison of expressivity and penetrance of the double podding trait and yield components based on reciprocal crosses of kabuli and desi chickpeas (Cicer arietinum L.). Euphytica 2014, 196, 331–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Adak, A.; Sari, D.; Sari, H.; Toker, C. Gene effects of Cicer reticulatum on qualitative and quantitative traits in the cultivated chickpea. Plant Breed. 2017, 136, 939–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Rubio, J.; Moreno, M.T.; Cubero, J.I.; Gil, J. Effect of the gene for double pod in chickpea on yield, yield components and stability of yield. Plant Breed. 1998, 117, 585–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Rubio, J.; Flores, F.; Moreno, M.T.; Cubero, J.I.; Gil, J. Effects of the erect/bushy habit, single/double pod and late/early flowering genes on yield and seed size and their stability in chickpea. Field Crops Res. 2004, 90, 255–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Srinivasan, S.; Gaur, P.M.; Chaturvedi, S.K.; Rao, B.V. Allelic relationships of genes controlling number of flowers per axis in chickpea. Euphytica 2006, 152, 331–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Rajesh, P.N.; Tullu, A.; Gil, J.; Gupta, V.; Ranjekar, P.; Muehlbauer, F. Identification of an STMS marker for the double-podding gene in chickpea. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2002, 105, 604–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Cho, S.; Kumar, J.; Shultz, J.L.; Anupama, K.; Tefera, F.; Muehlbauer, F.J. Mapping genes for double podding and other morphological traits in chickpea. Euphytica 2002, 128, 285–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Radhika, P.; Gowda, S.J.M.; Kadoo, N.Y.; Mhase, L.B.; Jamadagni, B.M.; Sainani, M.N.; Gupta, V.S. Development of an integrated intraspecific map of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) using two recombinant inbred line populations. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2007, 115, 209–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Taran, B.; Warkentin, T.D.; Vandenberg, A. Fast track genetic improvement of ascochyta blight resistance and double podding in chickpea by marker-assisted backcrossing. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2013, 126, 1639–1647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ali, L.; Deokar, A.; Caballo, C.; Tar’an, B.; Gil, J.; Chen, W.; Millan, L.; Rubio, J. Fine mapping for double podding gene in chickpea. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2016, 129, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Singh, M.; Rani, S.; Malhotra, N.; Katna, G.; Sarker, A. Transgressive segregations for agronomic improvement using interspecific crosses between C. arietinum L. x C. reticulatum Ladiz. and C. arietinum L. x C. echinospermum Davis species. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0203082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. De Vicente, M.C.; Tanksley, S.D. QTL analysis of transgressive segregation in an interspecific tomato cross. Genetics 1993, 134, 585–596. [Google Scholar]
  52. Gaur, P.M.; Pande, S.; Upadhyaya, H.D.; Rao, B.V. Extra-large kabuli chickpea with high resistance to fusarium wilt. J. Agric. Res. 2006, 2, 1–2. [Google Scholar]
  53. Bonfil, D.J.; Goren, O.; Mufradi, I.; Lichtenzveig, J.; Abbo, S. Development of early-flowering kabuli chickpea with compound and simple leaves. Plant Breed. 2007, 126, 125–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Gil, J.; Castro, P.; Millan, T.; Madrid, E.; Rubio, J. Development of new kabuli large-seeded chickpea materials with resistance to Ascochyta blight. Crop Pasture Sci. 2017, 68, 967–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Muehlbauer, F.J.; Temple, S.R.; Chen, W. Registration of Sierra chickpea. Crop Sci. 2004, 44, 1864–1865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Warkentin, T.; Banniza, S.; Vandenberg, A. CDC Frontier kabuli chickpea. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2005, 85, 909–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Gan, Y.T.; Siddique, K.H.M.; MacLeod, W.J.; Jayakumar, P. Management options for minimizing the damage by ascochyta blight (Ascochyta rabiei) in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Field Crops Res. 2006, 97, 121–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Gowda, C.L.L.; Upadhyaya, H.D.; Dronavalli, N.; Singh, S. Identification of large-seeded high-yielding stable kabuli chickpea germplasm lines for use in crop improvement. Crop Sci. 2011, 51, 198–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Taran, B.; Bandara, M.; Warkentin, T.; Banniza, S.; Vandenberg, A. CDC Orion kabuli chickpea. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2011, 91, 355–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Vandemark, G.; Guy, S.O.; Chen, W.; McPhee, K.; Pfaff, J.; Lauver, M.; Muehlbauer, F.J. Registration of ‘Nash’chickpea. J. Plant Regist. 2015, 9, 275–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Urrea, C.A.; Muehlbauer, F.J.; Harveson, R.M. Registration of ‘New Hope’Chickpea Cultivar with Enhanced Resistance to Ascochyta Blight. J. Plant Regist. 2017, 11, 107–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Vandemark, G.; Nelson, H.; Chen, W.; McPhee, K.; Muehlbauer, F. Registration of ‘Royal’ Chickpea. J. Plant Regist. 2019, 13, 123–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Rubio, J.; Moreno, M.T.; Martinez, C.; Gil, J. Registration of CA2969, an Ascochyta blight resistant and double-podded chickpea germplasm. (Registrations of Germplasm). Crop Sci. 2003, 43, 1567–1569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Auckland, A.K.; Van der Maesen, L.J.G. Chickpea. In Hybridization of Crop Plants; Fehr, W.R., Hadley, H.H., Eds.; American Society of Agronomy and Crop Science Society of America: Madison, WI, USA, 1980; pp. 249–259. [Google Scholar]
  65. MINITAB 2014 Inc. Minitab Statistical Software, Release 17 for Windows; MINITAB 2014 Inc.: State College, PA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  66. Poehlman, J.M.; Sleper, D.A. Breeding Field Crops; Iowa State University Press: Ames, IA, USA, 1995; p. 494. [Google Scholar]
  67. Steel, R.G.D.; Torrie, J.H. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
  68. Rao, N.K.; Pundir, R.P.S.; Van Der Maesen, L.J.G. Inheritance of some qualitative characters in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Proc. Plant Sci. 1980, 89, 497–503. [Google Scholar]
  69. Pundir, R.P.S.; Mengesha, M.H.; Reddy, K.N. Leaf types and their genetics in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Euphytica 1990, 45, 197–200. [Google Scholar]
  70. Danehloueipour, N.; Clarke, H.J.; Yan, G.; Khan, T.N.; Siddique, K.H.M. Leaf type is not associated with ascochyta blight disease in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Euphytica 2008, 162, 281–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Toker, C.; Ceylan, F.O.; Inci, N.E.; Yildirim, T.; Cagirgan, M.I. Inheritance of leaf shape in the cultivated chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Turk Field Crops 2012, 17, 16–18. [Google Scholar]
  72. Abbo, S.; Goren, O.; Saranga, Y.; Langensiepen, M.; Bonfil, D. Leaf shape × sowing density interaction affects chickpea grain yield. Plant Breed. 2013, 132, 200–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Upadhyaya, H.D.; Sharma, S.; Gowda, C.L. Major genes with additive effects for seed size in kabuli chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). J. Genet. 2011, 90, 479–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Ceylan, F.O.; Adak, A.; Sari, D.; Sari, H.; Toker, C. Unveiling of suppressed genes in interspecific and backcross populations derived from mutants of Cicer species. Crop Pasture Sci. 2019, 70, 254–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Morphological traits of parents, Sierra (single-podded and unifoliolate leaf, left side) and CA 2969 (double-podded and imparipinnate leaf, right side).
Figure 1. Morphological traits of parents, Sierra (single-podded and unifoliolate leaf, left side) and CA 2969 (double-podded and imparipinnate leaf, right side).
Agronomy 10 00901 g001
Figure 2. Distribution of F2 progeny derived from intraspecific crosses between Sierra (single-podded and unifoliolate leaf) and CA 2969 (double-podded and imparipinnate leaf) according to 100-seed weight.
Figure 2. Distribution of F2 progeny derived from intraspecific crosses between Sierra (single-podded and unifoliolate leaf) and CA 2969 (double-podded and imparipinnate leaf) according to 100-seed weight.
Agronomy 10 00901 g002
Figure 3. Seeds of a progeny (with two pods per axil and 63 g per 100 seeds, left side) in F3 derived from intraspecific crosses between Sierra (single-podded, unifoliolate leaf and 46.9 g per 100 seeds, right side) and CA 2969 (double-podded, imparipinnate leaf and 27.4 g per 100 seeds, middle).
Figure 3. Seeds of a progeny (with two pods per axil and 63 g per 100 seeds, left side) in F3 derived from intraspecific crosses between Sierra (single-podded, unifoliolate leaf and 46.9 g per 100 seeds, right side) and CA 2969 (double-podded, imparipinnate leaf and 27.4 g per 100 seeds, middle).
Agronomy 10 00901 g003
Figure 4. A progeny in F3 (with three flowers per axil, unifoliolate leaves and large seeds) derived from intraspecific crosses between Sierra (single-podded and unifoliolate leaf) and CA 2969 (double-podded and imparipinnate leaf). Red circles indicate three flowers/pods.
Figure 4. A progeny in F3 (with three flowers per axil, unifoliolate leaves and large seeds) derived from intraspecific crosses between Sierra (single-podded and unifoliolate leaf) and CA 2969 (double-podded and imparipinnate leaf). Red circles indicate three flowers/pods.
Agronomy 10 00901 g004
Table 1. Inheritance of the leaf shape (imparipinnate vs. unifoliolate) and number of pods per axil (single vs. double) in F2 population derived from intraspecific crosses between Sierra and CA 2969.
Table 1. Inheritance of the leaf shape (imparipinnate vs. unifoliolate) and number of pods per axil (single vs. double) in F2 population derived from intraspecific crosses between Sierra and CA 2969.
Phenotype of F1sF2χ2p
Phenotype of F2 PopulationObservedExpected
Imparipinnate leaf and single podImparipinnate leaf and single pod4759:3:3:18.250.50–0.10
Imparipinnate leaf and double pods181
Unifoliolate leaf and single pod189
Unifoliolate leaf and double pods70
Table 2. Means ± standard errors, ranges and narrow sense heritability for agro-morphological traits in F2 derived from intraspecific crosses between Sierra (single-podded and unifoliolate leaf) and CA 2969 (double-podded and imparipinnate leaf).
Table 2. Means ± standard errors, ranges and narrow sense heritability for agro-morphological traits in F2 derived from intraspecific crosses between Sierra (single-podded and unifoliolate leaf) and CA 2969 (double-podded and imparipinnate leaf).
TraitsSierraCA 2969Imparipinnate LeafUnifoliolate LeafF2 Populationh2
Single PodDouble PodsSingle PodDouble Pods
X ¯ ± S X ¯ X ¯ ± S X ¯ X ¯ ± S X ¯ X ¯ ± S X ¯ X ¯ ± S X ¯ X ¯ ± S X ¯ X ¯ ± S X ¯ Range
Days to first flowering (days)48.0 ± 0.9750.0 ± 0.9041.0 ± 0.2941.5 ± 0.5041.3 ± 0.4740.8 ± 0.7041.2 ± 0.2145–660.80
Days to 50% flowering (days)50.0 ± 0.9752.0 ± 0.9047.6 ± 0.2947.8 ± 0.5048.1 ± 0.4647.5 ± 0.7747.8 ± 0.2445–750.80
Plant height (cm)41.0 ± 0.9734.3 ± 1.1737.7 ± 0.3137.6 ± 0.5038.9 ± 0.4341.7 ± 0.7038.9 ± 0.2117–590.43
First pod height (cm)21.0 ± 0.7319.7 ± 2.3530.5 ± 0.3230.2 ± 0.4432.2 ± 0.4934.0 ± 0.8531.7 ± 0.2311–580.65
Main stems per plant (No.)2.7 ± 0.492.3 ± 0.212.0 ± 0.042.1 ± 0.062.4 ± 0.072.7 ± 0.152.3 ± 0.031–70.38
Pods per plant (No.)5.2 ± 1.303.0 ± 2.543.6 ± 0.164.5 ± 0.303.6 ± 0.284.5 ± 0.554.1 ± 0.111–250.49
Seeds per plant (No.)4.2 ± 1.0811.7 ± 1.963.5 ± 0.144.2 ± 0.283.3 ± 0.224.2 ± 0.443.8 ± 0.111–240.66
Seed yield (g)1.8 ± 0.563.7 ± 0.721.3 ± 0.051.5 ± 0.101.3 ± 0.101.5 ± 0.161.4 ± 0.040.1–6.90.60
100-seed weight (g)49.9 ± 1.6131.0 ± 1.2637.2 ± 0.5435.2 ± 0.7637.3 ± 1.7036.0 ± 0.936.4 ± 0.369.5–69.00.45
Table 3. Means ± standard errors and ranges for agro-morphological traits in F3 derived from intraspecific crosses between Sierra (single-podded and unifoliolate leaf) and CA 2969 (double-podded and imparipinnate leaf).
Table 3. Means ± standard errors and ranges for agro-morphological traits in F3 derived from intraspecific crosses between Sierra (single-podded and unifoliolate leaf) and CA 2969 (double-podded and imparipinnate leaf).
TraitsSierraCA 2969Imparipinnate LeafUnifoliolate LeafF3 Population
Single PodDouble PodsSingle PodDouble Pods
X ¯ ± S X ¯ X ¯ ± S X ¯ X ¯ ± S X ¯ X ¯ ± S X ¯ X ¯ ± S X ¯ X ¯ ± S X ¯ X ¯ ± S X ¯ Range
Days to first flowering (days)48.3 ± 0.0850.0 ± 0.5046.1 ± 0.2346.2 ± 0.1945.0 ± 0.2946.4 ± 0.2746.0 ± 0.1236–75
Days to 50% flowering (days)50.3 ± 0.0852.3 ± 0.4248.9 ± 0.2049.2 ± 0.1747.9 ± 0.2349.2 ± 0.2148.9 ± 0.1038–82
Plant height (cm)52.3 ± 0.6142.7 ± 0.0843.8 ± 0.2744.5 ± 0.2548.9 ± 0.4250.8 ± 0.4046.3 ± 0.1819–68
First pod height (cm)31.3 ± 0.3833.3 ± 0.7929.9 ± 0.2630.7 ± 0.2531.6 ± 0.4132.4 ± 0.3730.9 ± 0.1513–46
Main stems per plant (No.)2.3 ± 0.092.3 ± 0.082.7 ± 0.042.8 ± 0.042.8 ± 0.052.9 ± 0.042.8 ± 0.021–6
Pods per plant (No.)36.7 ± 2.0542.7 ± 2.762.7 ± 1.8769.9 ± 1.8548.5 ± 1.7548.8 ± 1.3559.5 ± 0.961–254
Seeds per plant (No.)32.7 ± 2.0250.7 ± 2.4668.0 ± 2.0677.9 ± 2.0951.4 ± 1.8552.3 ± 1.4664.9 ± 1.071–267
Seed yield (g)15.2 ± 0.8613.9 ± 0.7224.3 ± 0.7426.4 ± 0.6916.3 ± 0.5816.3 ± 0.4621.9 ± 0.370.1–79.0
100-seed weight (g)46.9 ± 0.3127.4 ± 0.3442.1 ± 0.3841.4 ± 0.3838.9 ± 0.4538.5 ± 0.4140.7 ± 0.217.0–64.0

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kivrak, K.G.; Eker, T.; Sari, H.; Sari, D.; Akan, K.; Aydinoglu, B.; Catal, M.; Toker, C. Integration of Extra-Large-Seeded and Double-Podded Traits in Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Agronomy 2020, 10, 901. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10060901

AMA Style

Kivrak KG, Eker T, Sari H, Sari D, Akan K, Aydinoglu B, Catal M, Toker C. Integration of Extra-Large-Seeded and Double-Podded Traits in Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Agronomy. 2020; 10(6):901. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10060901

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kivrak, Kamile Gul, Tuba Eker, Hatice Sari, Duygu Sari, Kadir Akan, Bilal Aydinoglu, Mursel Catal, and Cengiz Toker. 2020. "Integration of Extra-Large-Seeded and Double-Podded Traits in Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)" Agronomy 10, no. 6: 901. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10060901

APA Style

Kivrak, K. G., Eker, T., Sari, H., Sari, D., Akan, K., Aydinoglu, B., Catal, M., & Toker, C. (2020). Integration of Extra-Large-Seeded and Double-Podded Traits in Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Agronomy, 10(6), 901. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10060901

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop