Next Article in Journal
Deep Splicer: A CNN Model for Splice Site Prediction in Genetic Sequences
Previous Article in Journal
Array Comparative Genomic Hybridisation and Droplet Digital PCR Uncover Recurrent Copy Number Variation of the TTN Segmental Duplication Region
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Genes
Volume 13
Issue 5
10.3390/genes13050906
genes-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Combining Ability and Gene Action Controlling Agronomic Traits for Cytoplasmic Male Sterile Line, Restorer Lines, and New Hybrids for Developing of New Drought-Tolerant Rice Hybrids

by
Mamdouh M. A. Awad-Allah
1,*,
Kotb A. Attia
1,2,
Ahmad Alsayed Omar
3,4,
Azza H. Mohamed
4,5,
Rehab M. Habiba
6,
Fahad Mohammed Alzuaibr
7,
Mohammed Ali Alshehri
7,
Mohammed Alqurashi
8,
Salman Aloufi
8,
Eldessoky S. Dessoky
9 and
Mohamed A. Abdein
10,*
1
Rice Research Department, Field Crops Research Institute, Agricultural Research Center, Giza 12619, Egypt
2
Department of Biochemistry, College of Science, King Saud University, P.O. Box 2455, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia
3
Biochemistry Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Zagazig University, Zagazig 44519, Egypt
4
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Citrus Research & Education Center, University of Florida, 700 Experiment Station Road, Lake Alfred, FL 33850, USA
5
Department of Agricultural Chemistry, College of Agriculture, Mansoura University, Mansoura 35516, Egypt
6
Department of Genetics, Faculty of Agriculture, Mansoura University, Mansoura, 35516, Egypt
7
Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, University of Tabuk, Tabuk 47713, Saudi Arabia
8
Department of Biotechnology, Faculty of Science, Taif University, Taif 21974, Saudi Arabia
9
Department of Biology, College of Science, Taif University, P.O. Box 11099, Taif 21944, Saudi Arabia
10
Biology Department, Faculty of Arts and Science, Northern Border University, Rafha 91911, Saudi Arabia
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Genes 2022, 13(5), 906; https://doi.org/10.3390/genes13050906
Submission received: 5 April 2022 / Revised: 10 May 2022 / Accepted: 16 May 2022 / Published: 19 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Plant Genetics and Genomics)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study aimed to identify new rice lines and hybrids that are tolerant to water deficit and produce high yields under water stress conditions. A line × tester mating design was used to study the lines and testers’ general combining ability (GCA) effects. The specific combining ability (SCA) of the hybrid rice combinations was measured under three different irrigation regimes; 6, 9, and 12 days. The study was carried out at the experimental farm of Sakha Agricultural Research Station, Sakha, Kafr El-Sheikh, Egypt, during the 2018 and 2019 rice growing seasons. Due to the genotypes and their partitions to the parents and the crosses, the mean squares were highly significant for all studied traits under the three irrigation regimes. The additive gene effects play an important role in expressing most of the studied traits. Therefore, the selection procedures based on the accumulation of the additive effect would be successful at improving these traits and the grain yield. The cytoplasmic male sterile (CMS) line G46A (L1) was the best combiner for most yield component traits in the three irrigation regimes. The newly devolved restorer lines T11, T1, T2, T5, T4, and T3, as well as the new hybrids L2 × T10, L2 × T6, L1 × T7, L1 × T5, L1 × T3, L2 × T7, L2 × T9, L2 × T8, L2 × T4, L1 × T4, L2 × T2, L1 × T8, L1 × T9, and L2 × NRL 10, showed good, desirable values of the studied traits such as earliness of flowering, short plant height, number of panicles/plant, panicle length, number of spikelets/panicle, number of filled grains/panicle, panicle weight, 1000-grain weight, hulling percentage, milling percentage, head rice percentage, and grain yield under the irrigation regimes of 6, 9, and 12 days. The hybrids L2 × T10, L2 × T6, L1 × T7, and L1 × T5, showed significant positive SCA effects for grain yield, under all three irrigation regimes.

1. Introduction

Amongst cereals, rice (Oryza sativa L.) is one of the most important staple crops globally for food security [1,2,3]. Rice is very important in Egypt because of its high economic impact. The rice cultivated area in Egypt is 360.44 thousand hectares. The total rice production in Egypt was evaluated at 3.15 million tons in 2018 [4,5].
Water scarcity is a major global problem. This challenge has a high impact on agriculture. Rice is considered a sensitive crop to water stress, which affects grain yield and quality [6,7]. To overcome the water deficiency problem, there is a demand for developing new hybrids from rice that can tolerate drought conditions with high yield [5]. Serraj (2011) [8] reported that the reduction in irrigated water can be achieved rapidly by developing new varieties that require less irrigation without a decrease in grain yield and quality traits. Subsequently, water productivity can be increased by using promising genotypes that produce high yields in drought-prone areas, certain agronomic practices, or a suitable irrigation regime [9]. High-yield genotypes are essential in different weather conditions, and the cultivation of these genotypes is necessary to keep higher productivity and quality content of rice grain under water stress [10,11,12].
Grain characteristics that meet consumer preferences are part of rice grain quality; the physical properties of rice grains include milling recovery [13,14]. In addition, the physical properties of rice grains differ in different genotypes of rice and affect the quality characteristics of the grain [15].
Several methods and techniques are used to evaluate new rice genotypes regarding their tolerance to water stress conditions at different crop development stages [12,16,17,18]. Field trials have been used as the main criteria for evaluating drought stress scoring methods and selecting stress-tolerant rice cultivars during crop growth stages [19]. Genotypes that produce high yields under water stress conditions have been selected as drought-tolerant genotypes [12]. Several pressure tolerance indices [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30] have been used for yield production under well water and water pressure conditions. Generally, stress indicators are calculated based on the tolerance to stress or the sensitivity to stress based on a genetic genotype, according to [23,25]. These genotypes can be used as indicators to evaluate water stress effects based on yield losses under stress conditions compared to optimal water conditions [31]. During stress, a decline in yield indicates the susceptibility of the genotype to stress [32]. Fischer and Maurer (1978) [20] suggested that a genotype’s stress sensitivity index (SSI) and tolerance index (TI) explain the difference in productivity between different water stress conditions [21].
Parental lines with good combining abilities are considered the main factor for successful hybrid rice breeding that provides a promising tool for increasing rice production. Therefore, the selection process for developing potential parental lines is always a big challenge for rice breeders. In addition, the combining ability was determined to investigate the ability of a specific parental line to transfer its genetic information to its progeny [33,34,35].
Line × tester analysis is an effective biometric tool for measuring the general combining ability (GCA) and specific combining ability (SCA). It can also provide information about the nature of gene actions [36,37].
Therefore, this study’s objective was to evaluate the performance, combining ability, and gene effects for yield-related and grain quality traits among newly developed restorer lines. This goal was achieved through hybridization according to a line × tester mating design under both normal and two water-stress conditions. This could be utilized to develop promising, high-yield hybrid rice varieties.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Plant Materials

The current study was carried out at the experimental farm of Sakha Agricultural Research Station, Sakha, Kafr El-Sheikh, Egypt, (30°57′12″ north latitude, 31°07′19″ east longitude) during the 2018 and 2019 rice growing seasons. The soil’s mechanical properties were clay (64.3%), sand (7.6%), and silt (28.1%), with pH ranging from 7.8 to 8.5, and the weather was hot and humid. The genetic materials consist of 16 rice lines, including two cytoplasmic male sterile (CMS) lines used as female parents, Gang46A (L1) and IR69625A (L2). These two lines were replaced by their maintainer lines during the field evaluation of the parental lines. Eleven new promising rice restorer lines, NRL 2, NRL 9, NRL 10, NRL 11, NRL 12, NRL 29, NRL 42, NRL 43, NRL 44, NRL 47, and NRL 50 (T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7, T8, T9, T10, and T11, respectively), in addition to a commercial restorer variety Giza178 (T12), were used as male parents. The control hybrid in this study was the Egyptian Hybrid 1 (L2 × T12), a commercial hybrid in Egypt (Table 1).

2.2. Experiments Setup and Crop Management

In the growing season of 2018, hybridization between parents was carried out using a line × tester mating design by hand crossing according to the technique proposed by [38] to produce 24 hybrids (F1). In the growing season of 2019, all genotypes, including F1 hybrid combinations with their male and female parents, grew in a field trial containing three different experiments. All experiments were designed using a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications. Seedlings at 25 days old were transplanted with one seedling per hill. Spacing of 20 cm between rows and 20 cm between plants was applied. The first experiment was performed under an irrigation regime at 6-day intervals, the second experiment was performed under an irrigation regime at 9-day intervals to model moderate water stress conditions, and the third was performed under an irrigation regime at 12-day intervals to model strong water stress conditions. These conditions were applied using a flash irrigation system. The irrigation system was applied 15 days after transplant and continued until the maturity stage. The cultural practices with the standard recommendation were conducted as recommended by the Rice Research and Training Center (RRTC), Field Crops Research Institute, Agricultural Research Center, Giza, Egypt. Five random plants from the central rows in each replication were selected and evaluated for their yield and component traits.

2.3. Studied Traits

Data were recorded on days to 50% heading (day), plant height (cm), panicle length (cm), panicle length (cm), number of panicles per plant, spikelet fertility (%), number of spikelets per panicle, number of filled grains per panicle, panicle weight (g), grain yield per plant (g), 1000-grain weight (g), hulling percentage, head rice recovery percentage, and milling percentage. All the measurement techniques were based on the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) Standard Evaluation System [19].
Yield   reduction   index   YRDI = 1 − Ys Yp × 100
where Yp and Ys are grain yields of each genotype under non-stress and stress conditions, respectively [20].

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The data were analyzed using the analysis of variances (ANOVA) test for RCBD as suggested by [39] to test the significance of differences among the genotypes. Line × tester (L × T) analysis was performed according to [36]. General combining ability (GCA) and specific combining ability (SCA) effects were estimated according to [40]. The genetic components were estimated based on the expectations of mean squares according to [41]. Principal component analysis (PCA) and two-way hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) were carried out using JMP Data analysis software, Version 16 (JMP Statistical Discovery LLC, Cary, NC, USA) [42].

3. Results

3.1. Analysis of Variance

The analysis of variance (ANOVA) for grain yield and their contributing traits as well as some grain quality traits under the irrigation regimes of 6, 9, and 12 days are presented in Tables S1 and S2. The results revealed that the mean squares due to genotypes and the partitions to the parents of the crosses were highly significant for all studied traits under the three irrigation regimes. Meanwhile, the mean squares of lines were significantly or highly significantly different under all three irrigation regimes for all studied traits except for the number of panicles per plant under the irrigation regime of 6 and 9 days, panicle length under 12 days, spikelet fertility percentage under 6 and 9 days, and grain yield per plant and hulling percent under all three irrigation regimes. Moreover, the mean squares of testers were significant and highly significant under all three irrigation regimes for all studied traits except for hulling percentage under 9-day irrigation. The mean square of line × tester showed significant and highly significant differences under all three irrigation regimes for all studied traits except panicle length under the irrigation regime of 6 and 9 days (Tables S1 and S2).
The estimation of the ratio between K2 GCA (additive gene effects) and K2 SCA (non-additive gene effects) for the grain yield and contributing traits as well as grain quality traits under the irrigation regimes of 6, 9, and 12 days are presented in Tables S3 and S4. The ratio of K2 GCA/K2 SCA was more than unity for all studied traits except for days to heading, panicle length, and panicle weight under 12-day irrigation; 1000 grain weight under 6-day irrigation; and hulling percentage under 12-day irrigation (Tables S3 and S4).

3.2. Effect of Water Stress on Yield Performance and Productivity

The mean performances of the morphological and yield characters of the studied genotypes are presented in Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4 and Table S5. For days to 50% heading, the data revealed that L1 was the earliest under all three irrigation regimes. The two testers T8 and T9 were the earliest under the irrigation regimes of 6 days, 9 days, and 12 days (Table 2). Among the hybrids, the L1 × T4 hybrid was the earliest under the three irrigation regimes of 6, 9, and 12 days. For plant height, L1 showed the shortest plant height (desirable) and gave the lowest mean value (Table 2). However, the testers T8, T7, and T9, showed the lowest values under the three irrigation regimes (6, 9, and 12 days). While the most desirable mean values for tallness for the restorer lines were found in the restorers T11, T1, and T6, the CMS line L1, and the CMS line L2 (Table 2). The most desirable mean values for shortness were found in the three hybrids; L2 × T9, L2 × T8, and L2 × T4 under the irrigation regimes of 6, 9, and 12 days. Concerning the number of panicles per plant in the three genotypes T10, T4, and T8 gave the highest mean values (Table 2) under the three irrigation regimes of 6, 9, and 12 days. The four hybrids; L2 × T10, L1 × T1, L1 × T11, and L2 × T6, gave the highest mean values under the three irrigation regimes (Table 2). For 1000–grain weight, the highest value was recorded for L1. The four testers, T8, T2, T9, and T7 gave the highest mean values of 1000–grain weight under the three irrigation intervals (Table S5, Figure 1). The nine hybrids; L1 × T4, L1 × T6, L1 × T7, L1 × T2, L1 × T10, L2 × T7, L1 × T3, L1 × T9, and L2 × T6 gave the highest mean values of the 1000–grain weight under the three irrigation regimes (Table S5, Figure 1). Regarding the grain yield per plant, the results indicated that the line L2 showed the highest mean value under all irrigation regimes. The four testers T1, T2, T5, and T11 showed the highest mean values under the irrigation regime of 6 and 9 days (Figure 2A). On the contrary, the testers T3, T5, T2, and T4 showed the highest mean values under the irrigation regime of 12 days (Table S5, Figure 2A).
For the grain quality traits hulling percentage, milling percentage, and head rice percentage, the new hybrids and all newly developed restorer lines (testers) showed the highest mean performance values under all three irrigation regimes. Moreover, the testers T10, T5, and T1, as well as the hybrids L1 × T3 and L1 × T11 showed the highest mean values for grain quality traits under the three irrigation regimes (Table S6).
With regard to contributing traits and grain yield, T11, T1, T2, T5, T4, T3, L2 × T10, L2 × T6, L1 × T7, L1 × T5, L1 × T3, L2 × T7, L2 × T9, L2 × T8, L2 × T4, L1 × T4, L2 × T2, L1 × T8, L1 × T9, and L2 × T3 recorded good, or desirable values for the traits earliness, shortness, number of panicles/plant, panicle length, number of spikelets per panicle, number of filled grains per panicle, panicle weight, 1000-grain weight, hulling percentage, milling percentage, head rice percentage, and grain yield under the irrigation regimes of 6, 9, and 12 days.
The female parent showed a yield reduction of 20.7% and 28.67% for L1 and L2, respectively, under the irrigation regime of 9 days, while it showed a yield reduction of 35.4% and 38.3% for L1 and L2, respectively, under the irrigation regime of 12 days (Figure 2B and Table S5). Concerning the newly developed restorer lines, the yield reduction ranged from 17.7% to 36.66% for T7 and T10, respectively, under the irrigation regime of 9 days, while under the irrigation regime of 12 days it ranged from 31.6% to 57.2% for T3 and T10, respectively (Figure 2B and Table S5). This result indicates that these lines were subjected to severe water stress. The hybrid check variety (L2 × T12) showed a yield reduction of 36.7% and 51% under the irrigation regimes of 9 and 12 days, respectively. For new hybrids, the yield reduction ranged from 12.6% to 30.4% for hybrid L1 × T9 and hybrid L2 × T10, respectively, under the irrigation regime of 9 days, with a value of 31.1% for Egyptian Hybrid 1 (L2 × T12). On the contrary, the new hybrids showed a yield reduction ranging from 12.6% to 64.4% for hybrid L1 × T9 and hybrid L2 × T10, respectively, under the irrigation regime of 12 days, with a value of 43.6% for Egyptian Hybrid 1 (the check hybrid) as a control (Table S5 and Figure 2B).

3.3. General Combining Ability (GCA) Effects

The general combining ability (GCA) effects for lines and testers under the irrigation regimes of 6, 9, and 12 days are presented in Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7. The data revealed that line L2 gave highly significant negative and desirable values for days to 50% heading and plant height under the three irrigation regimes. Moreover, the same line gave highly significant and significantly positive desirable values of spikelet fertility percentage under all three irrigation regimes. Meanwhile, line L1 showed highly significant positive and desirable values for the number of panicles per plant under the irrigation regimes of 9 and 12 days; panicle length under the irrigation regimes of 6 and 9 days; and number of spikelets per panicle, number of filled grains per panicle, panicle weight, 1000-grain weight, milling percentage, and head rice recovery percentage under all three irrigation regimes (Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7).
For the males, the results showed that only seven, seven, and eight out of 12 testers exhibited significant and highly significant negative combining ability effects for days to 50% heading under irrigation regimes of 6, 9, and 12 days, respectively. The lowest desirable values were recorded by testers T8, T9, T4, and T6 under 6 days, while, under 9 and 12 days the testers T4, T7, T6 and T5, showed the lowest desirable values (Table 5). For plant height, the testers T9, T8, T10, T4, T5, T6, and T3 showed highly significant negative and desirable values of GCA effects under the irrigation regime of 6 days, while the testers T4, T9, T7, T6, T5, T8, and T10 showed highly significant negative and desirable values of GCA effects under the irrigation regime of 9 days (Table 5). Moreover, under an irrigation regime of 12 days, the testers T6, T8, T7, and T9 showed highly significant negative and desirable values of GCA effects. The negative values are indicators of decreased plant height. For the number of panicles per plant, the results showed that the testers T10 and T11 exhibited the highest and highly significant positive values of GCA effects under the three irrigation regimes, respectively. For panicle length, the testers T11 and T12 had highly significant positive desirable values under the irrigation regime of 6 days, while T11 and T10 had highly significant positive desirable values under the irrigation regime of 9 days (Table 5). In addition, six testers had highly significant and significant positive desirable values under the irrigation regime of 12 days, and the highest values were recorded for T11, T10, and T5 (Table 5).
Regarding the number of spikelets per panicle and the number of filled grains per panicle, the results showed that highly significant positive and desirable values of GCA effects were recorded by tester T7 under the irrigation regime of 6 days and tester T8 under the irrigation regimes of 9 and 12 days (Table 6). For panicle weight, the data indicated that the three testers T7, T9, and T8 showed highly significant positive values of GCA effects under the irrigation regime of 6 days. At the same time, the four testers T7, T8, T9, and T4 had highly significant and significantly positive values of GCA effects under the irrigation regime of 9 days. However, the five testers T8, T3, T9, and T7 gave highly significant positive values of GCA effects under the irrigation regime of 12 days. For spikelet fertility percentage, the results showed that only seven, six, and six out of 12 testers exhibited highly significant positive values of GCA effects under irrigation regimes of 6, 9, and 12 days, respectively (Table 6). T4 recorded the highest value under the irrigation regimes of 6 and 9 days, and T9 did so under the irrigation regime of 12 days. Regarding 1000-grain weight, only three, six, and six out of 12 testers exhibited highly significant positive values of GCA effects under irrigation regimes of 6, 9, and 12 days, respectively. T7 was the best general combiner at the three irrigation intervals, with values of 1.2, 1.6, and 1.5, respectively (Table 7). For grain yield per plant, eight, seven, and four testers showed highly significant and significantly positive values of general combining ability effects under the irrigation regimes of 6, 9, and 12 days, respectively. The testers T7, T2, T4, and T3, showed the highest significant positive values of GCA effects under the irrigation regime of 6 days. The testers T7, T9, T2, and T3 gave the highest significant positive values of GCA effects under the irrigation regime of 9 days. The testers T9, T3, T2, and T4 recorded highly significant positive values of general combining ability effects under the irrigation regimes of 12 days (Table 7).
The results showed that the testers T5, T10, and T11 were the best general combiners under the irrigation regimes of 6, 9, and 12 days, respectively. For milling percentage, the results revealed that the best GCA were recorded for testers T10 for the irrigation regimes of 6 and 9 days and T9 for the irrigation regime of 12 days. For head rice percentage, the results indicated that the five testers T11, T10, T12, T1, and T2 showed highly significant positive values of GCA effects under the irrigation regime of 6 days. At the same time, the four testers T1, T2, T11, and T12 showed highly significant and significantly positive values of GCA effects under the irrigation regime of 9 days. In addition, the four testers T4, T11, T1, and T12 gave highly significant and significant positive values of GCA effects under the irrigation regime of 12 days (Table 7).

3.4. Specific Combining Ability (SCA) Effects

Specific combining ability (SCA) effects for the grain yield and contributing traits of the 24 F1 hybrids under the irrigation regimes of 6, 9, and 12 days are presented in Table 8, Table 9 and Table 10. The results reveal that only three, four, and seven out of 24 hybrid combinations exhibited highly significant and significant negative desirable values of specific combining ability effects for days to 50% heading under the three irrigation regimes, respectively. The hybrid L1 × T4 was the best combination under the three irrigation regimes (Table 8). Only six out of 24 hybrids had highly significant and significant negative desirable values under the three irrigation regimes for plant height. However, the best combination was shown for hybrids L1 × T6 under the irrigation regime 6 days and L1 × T1 under the irrigation regimes of 9 and 12 days. Concerning the number of panicles per plant, the result revealed that nine, eight, and nine hybrids recorded highly significant and significant positive desirable values under the irrigation regimes of 6, 9, and 12 days, respectively. The hybrids L1 × T1, L2 × T10, L2 × T6, and L1 × T5 showed the highest significant positive values under the irrigation regime of 6 days. The hybrids L1 × T1, L2 × T6, L2 × T10, and L1 × T5 showed the highest significant positive values under the irrigation regime of 9 days. The hybrids L2 × T9, L1 × T1, L1 × T5, and L2 × T10 showed the highest significant positive values under the irrigation regime of 12 days (Table 8). For panicle length, the two hybrids L1 × T1 and L2 × T4 had highly significant positive values under the irrigation regime of 6 days. At the same time, the hybrids L2 × T3, L1 × T7, and L1 × T8 had significant positive values under the irrigation regime of 9 days, while the five hybrids L1 × T7, L1 × T8, L1 × T2, L2 × T4, and L2 × T6 showed significant and highly significant positive values under the irrigation regime of 12 days (Table 8). Concerning the number of spikelets per panicle, nine, nine, and ten hybrids had highly significant (desirable) positive values of SCA effects under the three irrigation regimes, respectively. The hybrids L2 × T6, L1 × T1, and L2 × T6 had the highest values of SCA effects under the irrigation regimes of 6, 9, and 12 days, respectively, (Table 9). Regarding the number of filled grains per panicle, there were 11, 11, and 10 hybrids that exhibited highly significant and significant positive desirable values of SCA effects under the three irrigation regimes, respectively. The highest significant positive values were shown in the hybrids L2 × T6, L2 × T3, and L2 × T4 under the irrigation regimes of 6, 9, and 12 days, respectively (Table 9). For panicle weight, 8, 10, and 7 hybrids had highly significant or significant positive and desirable values of SCA effects under the three irrigation regimes, respectively. The hybrids L1 × T5 and L2 × T11 recorded the highest significant positive values under the irrigation regimes of 6, 9, and 12 days, respectively. Regarding spikelet fertility percentage, the results showed that eight, five, and nine hybrids recorded highly significant and significantly positive (desirable) values of specific combining ability effects under the three irrigation regimes of 6, 9, and 12 days, respectively. The hybrids L2 × T3, L2 × T3, and L2 × T4 had the highest significant positive value of specific combining ability effects under the irrigation regimes of 6, 9, and 12 days, respectively (Table 9).
For 1000-grain weight, the results revealed that only 8, 10, and 7 out of 24 hybrids had highly significant and significantly positive desirable values of SCA effects under the irrigation regimes of 6, 9, and 12 days, respectively. The hybrids L1 × T9 and L2 × T6 were the best combinations under the irrigation regimes of 6, 9, and 12 days (Table 10). For grain yield per plant, 10, 8, and 7 hybrids showed highly significant and significantly positive desirable values of SCA effects under the three irrigation regimes, respectively. The hybrids L1 × T3, L1 × T2, L2 × T6, L2 × T10, and L1 × T5 exhibited the highest significantly positive values under the irrigation regime of 6 days. Additionally, the hybrids L2 × T10, L2 × T6, and L1 × T5 had the highest significantly positive values under the irrigation regime of 9 days, while the hybrids L1 × T7, L2 × T10, L2 × T2, and L1 × T5 exhibited the highest significantly positive values under the irrigation regime of 12 days (Table 10).
For hulling percentages, 3, 7, and 7 out of 24 hybrids exhibited highly significant and significant positive values of SCA effects under the irrigation regimes of 6, 9, and 12 days, respectively. The best hybrid combinations were L1 × T5, L1 × T1, and L1× T1 under the irrigation regimes of 6, 9, and 12 days, respectively. For milling percentage, the results showed that 7, 8, and 7 hybrids had highly significant and significantly positive values of SCA effects under the three irrigation regimes, respectively. The highest significantly positive values were shown in the hybrids L2 × T12, L2 × T12, L2 × T9 under the irrigation regimes of 6, 9, and 12 days, respectively. Regarding head rice percentage, 10, 8, and 7 hybrids recorded significant positive and desirable values of SCA effects under the three irrigation regimes, respectively. The hybrids L2 × T7, L2 × T7, and L2 × T9 showed the highest significant positive values under the irrigation regimes of 6, 9, and 12 days, respectively (Table 10).
The proportional contributions of lines, testers, and line × tester interactions for the expression of traits is presented in Table 11. It is apparent that the testers were more important under the irrigation regimes of 6, 9, and 12 days for days to 50% heading, plant height (except under the irrigation regime of 9 days), panicle length, number of spikelets per panicle, number of filled grains per panicle, panicle weight, spikelet fertility, 1000-grain weight, grain yield per plant (except under the irrigation regimes of 6and 9 days), hulling percentage (except under the irrigation regime of 9 days), milling percentage (except under the irrigation regimes of 6 and 9 days), and head rice percentage. At the same time, the contribution of lines was more important for plant height (under the irrigation regime of 9 days) and milling percentage (under the irrigation regimes of 6 and 9 days). Additionally, under the irrigation regimes of 6, 9, and 12 days, the contribution of maternal and paternal interaction (line × tester) was more critical for the number of panicles per plant, grain yield per plant (except under the irrigation regime 12 days), and hulling percentage (except under the irrigation regimes of 6 and 12 days), (Table 11).

3.5. Interrelationships between Genotypes, Irrigation Regimes, and Traits

Heat-map analysis (two-way hierarchical cluster analysis) data indicate significant differences among genotypes (Figure 3). The data showed a positive correlation in the pairs of traits such as days to 50% heading under the three irrigation regimes of 6, 9, and 12 days, grain yield per plant under 6, 9, and 12 days, and 1000-grain weight under 6, 9, and 12 days (Figure 3). The heat-map analysis showed that every trait under different irrigation regimes was in a sub-group. At the same time, the analysis showed that with the presence of close traits within one group with the presence of four main groups, the traits within each group are related to each other and affect each other such as grain yield per plant with 1000-grain weight and spikelet fertility percentage. Heat-map analysis located the genotypes under study in different groups based on the genetic background of the genotypes (Figure 3). According to the heat-map analysis, the genotypes under study have been divided into five clusters. The first cluster has two groups. Group A includes L1, L2, L2 × T1, and L1 × T6, while group B includes T7, T8, and T9. The second cluster also includes two groups. The first group consists of T2, T4, T3, T5, and T10, while the second group includes T6, L2 × T12 (check variety), L2 × T5, L2 × T10, and T12. The third cluster includes the eight genotypes T1, L1 × T1, T11, L1 × T12, L1 × T11, L2 × T12, L1 × T3, and L1 × T10. The fourth cluster consisted of the seven genotypes L1 × T2, L1 × T5, L2 × T4, L1 × T4, L1 × T9, L1 × T7, and L1 × T8, while the fifth and last cluster included the six hybrids L2 × T2, L2 T3, L2 × T8, L2 × T9, L2 × T6, and L2 × T7.
The principal component analysis (PCA) and two-way hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) of individual response variables in rice hybrids cultivated under three irrigation regimes (of 6, 9, and 12 days) indicated that the traits studied and the percent contribution of different components (lines, testers, and lines × testers) were clustered separately into three distinct clusters (Figure 4A,B). The PCA analysis showed a very good separation of the lines, testers, and hybrids under the three irrigation regimes, while the testers were more correlated with the measured parameters than the lines and the newly developed hybrids (Figure 4A). This was very clear in the HCA analysis since the contributions of the lines were clustered together regardless of the irrigation regime. The contributions of the line × tester hybrids were clustered together as an intermediate group regardless of the irrigation regime. Finally, the contributions of the testers were clustered as one group regardless of the irrigation regime as well.

4. Discussion

The parental lines and their hybrid combinations recorded better mean performances in all studied traits. However, the genotypes studied were affected by the irrigation regime in all studied traits (Table 2, Table 3, Table 4 and Table S5; Figure 1 and Figure 2A,B). Thus, we can use some of these genotypes as new restorer lines, new varieties, new hybrids, and a source for developing new restorer lines and new hybrids for water deficiency tolerance in rice breeding programs under Egyptian conditions.
The main objective of plant breeders when developing new lines or hybrids is to obtain high-yield genotypes that can also provide stable performance against the limitations of growing crops [43]. Therefore, genotypes tolerant to water stress with high yield ability under normal irrigated and water shortage conditions are highly valued. These genotypes (lines or hybrids) are spread in different areas to save water. Various studies have been carried out to overcome water stress in rice by breeding tolerant varieties using traditional breeding varieties [44].
Based on the results of previous studies, Awad-Allah (in 2006 and 2011) [45,46] found that the parental lines T12, BG 33-5, and BG 34-8 have the Rf1 allele where the M2, a dominant marker linked to the Rf1 gene, on chromosome 1. Additionally, these lines were identified as tolerant to water shortages (drought). Moreover, [45,46] revealed a band detected by RM 171 marker in studied genotypes, which suggests that these lines may have the Rf4 allele that is known to be linked with the RM 171 marker on chromosome 10 in WA CMS lines.
Based on the findings of molecular and field analyses by Awad-Allah in 2011 [46], the promising hybrids L2 × T12, L1 × BG 33-5, L1 × BG 34-8, and L2 × BG 34-8 were grow to produce F2 and the selection involved F2 to F7. The promising lines were selected and grown along with the parental lines and evaluated for phenotypic performance and yield ability. Therefore, the newly developed restorer lines contain restorer genes from the parents.
In this study, new lines have been developed by crossing two cytoplasmic male sterile lines with three genotypes. Subsequent selections of the lines under normal conditions with some water shortage over generations were conducted since the well-watered condition is the primary target in rice breeding and, as in most cases, high-yield lines can still give high to moderate yields under water shortage conditions [43,47,48,49].
It can be concluded that water stress delays the flowering time for most of the parents (the newly developed lines) and some hybrids. This has previously been observed in [50,51]. Some studies have indicated that delayed flowering under water stress is a good predictor of plant response and may explain plants’ adaptability to water deficiency [52]. Under different irrigation regimes, the differences in heading dates for the same genotype can be attributed to the extended vegetative stage due to water stress. Lafitte et al. (2004) [53] reported that water deficit results in delayed heading. This is mainly due to a reduction in plant dry matter production and slowed elongation of the panicle and supporting tissues and therefore delayed panicle excretion. At the same time, water stress causes earlier flowering in female parents and controls. In the current study, water-shortage stress negatively affects the performance of the newly developed restorer lines and the hybrids resulting from it. A negative effect has previously been reported by [44,54], in which water shortage caused a severe reduction in plant height, spikelet fertility, grain yield, and its components. Water stress pushes plants to perform more respiration and reduce photosynthesis, leading to less biomass accumulation and less grain yield [55]. Plant height was decreased with increased intervals up to 12 days. The reduction in plant height could be attributed to a decrease in cell size that causes a decrease in cell swelling, which decreases shoot development. Ahmed et al. (2017) [56] reported that water stress strongly influences plant growth and decreases plant height. Water stress reduces the cell size and division, affecting plant height under water stress. However, the reduction in the number of panicles per plant could be attributed to a lack of ability of tiller nodes to produce more tillers under water stress. A similar trend was found in [7,57,58].
Water shortage stress caused a reduction in the number of panicles per plant, panicle length, number of spikelets per panicle, spikelet fertility percentage, number of filled grains per panicle, panicle weight, 1000-grain weight, grain yield per plant, hulling percentage, milling percentage, and head rice recovery percentage. These findings are in harmony with those obtained by [59], who reported that drought stress caused many constructional and functional disruptions in floral organs, leading to malfunctions in fertilization or premature abortion of the seed, a decreased grain filling period, early senescence, photosynthesis reduction, and enhanced soluble sugar remobilization from grains to other vegetative parts, which were observed when water stress happened at the reproductive stage. Sugar or carbohydrate remobilization depends on source activity and sink strength, which varies by genotype. This may be because the growth characteristics under the conditions of shorter irrigation regimes of 6 and 9 days are better (increased dry matter, increased chlorophyll content, and increased plant height) and are associated with a higher ability to absorb mineral nutrients from the soil, which leads to increased absorption of nutrients and contributes to increased growth, thus resulting in a higher yield.
The female parent showed yield reductions of 20.7% and 28.67% for L1 and L2, respectively, under the irrigation regime of 9 days and yield reductions of 35.4% and 38.3% for L1 and L2, respectively, under the irrigation regime of 12 days. Several previous studies have reported more than 50% yield reductions, confirming successful water stress screening [60]. A reduction in panicle weight, panicle length, number of panicles per plant, number of spikelets per panicle, number of filled grains per panicle, spikelet fertility, and 1000-grain weight are some of the causes of grain yield reduction under water stress [35,61,62,63].
These results agree with those of [58,64], who stated that such increments in yield attributes under non-stress conditions could be due to the fact that available water enhances the biological and physiological processes, which increases the production and translocation of the dry matter content from source to sink, resulting in more panicles, greater grain filling, and greater grain weight.
The current research results confirm the possibility of using grain yield under water deficiency as an effective direct selection criterion for enhancing rice tolerance to water shortage stress. However, this study includes newly developed restorer lines (inbred lines) using a common parent. The new hybrids resulting from these lines showed highly significant values for the studied traits under the three irrigation regimes. This indicates that the presence of significant variations between the different genotypes.
The analysis of variance for various genotypes (restorer lines and hybrids) at three irrigation regimes showed significant differences for all studied traits; this indicates the presence of large variations between genotypes. Thus, the genotypes evaluated can be selected for genetic improvement for grain yield and other agronomic traits under water shortage conditions. Previous researchers have emphasized the importance of genetic variation in breeding new improved varieties [65,66]. The analyses of variance of line × tester showed significant and highly significant differences under the three irrigation regimes for all studied traits except panicle length under 6 days and 9 days. Similar results were obtained in [54,67,68,69,70,71].
Genetically, the GCA indicates additive and additive × additive gene action; on the other hand, the SCA detect the non-additive gene action. The results indicate that the preponderance of additive genes affect the expression of all studied traits (except days to heading, panicle length, panicle weight under 12 days irrigation regime, 1000 grain weight under 6 days irrigation regime, and hulling percentage). Therefore, selection procedures based on the accumulation of additive effects would successfully improve grain yield and its contributing traits. These results agree with the results obtained in [35,68,69,71].
In the current study, the two CMS lines performed the best for some yield–component traits under the irrigation intervals 6 days, 9 days, and 12 days. The CMS line L1 (G46A) was the best combiner for most of the yield component traits under the irrigation regimes of 6, 9, and 12 days. This finding was promising compared to those of previous studies. Past studies have indicated that no particular parent possessed the best GCA effects [71,72]. In contrast, most restorer lines recorded desirable values of the GCA effect for the studied traits. Among these, the newly devolved restorer lines T11, T1, T2, T5, T4, and T3 showed good, desirable values of the studied traits such as earliness, shortness, number of panicles per plant, panicle length, number of spikelets per panicle, number of filled grains/panicle, panicle weight, 1000-grain weight, hulling percentage, milling percentage, head rice percentage, and grain yield under the irrigation regimes of 6, 9, and 12 days. Additionally, a higher GCA being found in the restorer lines has been reported in former studies [35,67,70,73]. This means that these genotypes could be utilized as parents for breeding genotypes with more fertile grains per panicle for developing maintainers, restorer lines, and hybrids; these findings agreed with those of [35,46].
The values of SCA effects of the hybrid combinations indicated that all the hybrids present significant positive values of SCA effects for at least one yield component. Overall, the results suggested that no specific combination had positive SCA values for all traits in this study. It can also be concluded that the best hybrid combinations with a highly significant SCA for various traits had at least one parent with a good GCA. For days to 50% heading, the hybrid L1 × T4 was the best combination under the three irrigation regimes and exhibited a highly significant negative value. This hybrid appears to be a good specific combiner to develop early restorer lines and hybrids. However, the best combination for plant height was shown for hybrid L1 × T6 under the irrigation regime of 6 days and L1 × T1 under the irrigation regimes of 9 and 12 days. Negative values of SCA effects mean a decreased plant height and this could be helpful for breeding short-stature rice hybrids and rice cultivars, while positive values of SCA effects mean increased plant height and this could be helpful for breeding restorer lines. These results agree with the results obtained in [35,46]. In addition, the hybrids L2 × T10, L2 × T6, L1 × T7, and L1 × T5 showed significant positive SCA effects for grain yield under the irrigation intervals of 6 days, 9 days, and 12 days. These genotypes appeared to be good combiners to improve rice cultivars and hybrids for grain yield/plant under water shortage. These findings agree with the results obtained in [35,46,67,72,74]. The hybrid L1 × T5 had the highest SCA for the grain yield among hybrids whose parents had a negative GCA for that trait under the irrigation regimes of 6, 9, and 12 days (Table 10). At the same time, the hybrid IR69625 × T6 showed a desirable value of SCA for grain yield, while one of the parents showed negative GCA for that trait under the irrigation regimes of 6, 9, and 12 days. In contrast, the hybrid L1 × T7 showed negative SCA effects despite its parents having good GCAs for the 1000-grain weight under the irrigation regimes of 6, 9, and 12 days. These findings agree with the results obtained in [35,75]. These results probably occurred due to interactions between the positive and negative alleles of the parents’ genes and their complex combinations. This may be due to a poor combiner parent producing epistatic effects and a good combiner parent displaying suitable additive effects [76,77]. These findings were similar to the findings of previous studies [71].
The current study revealed that the testers were more important under all irrigation intervals for days to 50% heading, plant height (except under the irrigation regime of 9 days), panicle length, number of spikelets per panicle, number of filled grains per panicle, panicle weight, spikelet fertility, 1000-grain weight, grain yield per plant (except under the irrigation regimes of 6 and 9 days), hulling percentage (except under the irrigation regime of 9 days), milling percentage (except under the irrigation regimes of 6 and 9 days), and head rice percentage. These results are similar to those obtained by [77] for days to 50% flowering and plant height and [75] for number of spikelets per panicle. Bare preponderance testers influence these traits. At the same time, the contribution of lines was more important for other traits. These results agree with the results obtained in [78] for 1000-grain weight. In [77,78,79,80,81], they found that the contribution of maternal and paternal interaction (line × tester) was more important for grain yield per plant.

5. Conclusions

The newly developed restorer lines; T11, T1, T2, T5, T4, T3, as well as their new hybrids; L2 × T10, L2 × T6, L1 × T7, L1 × T5, L1 × T3, L2 × T7, L2 × T9, L2 × T8, L2 × T4, L1 × T4, L2 × T2, L1 × T8, L1 × T9, and L2 × T3 gave good, desirable performance values for the traits earliness, shortness, number of panicles per plant, panicle length, number of spikelets per panicle, number of filled grains per panicle, panicle weight, 1000-grain weight, hulling percentage, milling percentage, head rice percentage, and grain yield under normal irrigation regimes of 9 days and 12 days. The hybrids; L2 × T10, L2 × T6, L1 × T7, and L1 × T5 showed significant positive SCA effects for the grain yield under the three irrigation regimes of 6, 9, and 12 days. The newly developed restorer lines; T7, T8, T1, and T9 showed the lowest reduction in grain yield, while the check variety (control) showed a yield reduction of 38.2% under the irrigation regime of 9 days. On the contrary, the newly developed restorer lines; T3, T6, T9, and T5 showed the lowest reduction in grain yield compared to the control variety, which showed a yield reduction of 51% under the irrigation regime of 12 days. These genotypes appear to be good combiners to improve and release rice cultivars and hybrids to increase grain yield per plant under water-deficient conditions.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/genes13050906/s1, Table S1: Analysis of variance for the grain yield and its contributing traits for the studied genotypes under three irrigation regimes (6 days, 9 days, and 12 days), Table S2: Analysis of variance for the grain quality traits for the studied genotypes under three irrigation regimes, Table S3: Ratio between K2 GCA and K2 SCA for the grain yield and its contributing traits for the studied genotypes under three irrigation regimes, Table S4: Ratio between K2 GCA and K2 SCA for the grain yield and its contributing traits for the studied genotypes under three irrigation regimes, Table S5: Mean performance for the grain yield and its contributing traits of the studied genotypes under three irrigation regimes, Table S6: Mean performance for the grain yield and its contributing traits of the studied genotypes under three irrigation regimes.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.M.A.A.-A., A.A.O., F.M.A. and A.H.M.; data curation, M.M.A.A.-A., K.A.A., R.M.H., M.A., M.A.A. (Mohammed Ali Alshehri) and M.A.A. (Mohamed A. Abdein); Formal analysis, M.M.A.A.-A., K.A.A., A.H.M., R.M.H. and F.M.A.; funding acquisition, E.S.D., S.A., F.M.A. and M.A.A. (Mohammed Ali Alshehri); investigation, K.A.A., A.A.O., E.S.D., F.M.A., S.A., R.M.H., M.A. and A.H.M.; methodology, M.M.A.A.-A., A.A.O., K.A.A., S.A. and M.A.A. (Mohamed A. Abdein); project administration, M.M.A.A.-A., K.A.A., E.S.D. and M.A.A. (Mohamed A. Abdein); resources, M.M.A.A.-A. and K.A.A.; software, A.A.O., F.M.A., R.M.H., M.A.A. (Mohammed Ali Alshehri), M.A. and A.H.M.; supervision, M.M.A.A.-A., A.A.O. and M.A.A. (Mohamed A. Abdein); validation, E.S.D., S.A., M.A. and M.A.A. (Mohammed Ali Alshehri); visualization, M.M.A.A.-A., A.A.O., S.A., M.A., M.A.A. (Mohammed Ali Alshehri), R.M.H. and A.H.M.; writing—original draft, M.M.A.A.-A., K.A.A., A.A.O., M.A.A. (Mohamed A. Abdein) and A.H.M.; writing—review and editing, M.M.A.A.-A., A.A.O., E.S.D., M.A.A. (Mohamed A. Abdein) and A.H.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The current work was funded by the Taif University Researchers Supporting Project (number TURSP-2020/85), Taif University, Taif, Saudi Arabia.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data generated during this study is presented in the manuscript and Supplementary Materials.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to and thank all members of the Rice Research Department, Field Crops Research Institute, ARC, Egypt, for the support they provided while we were conducting this research. The authors extend their appreciation to Taif University for funding the current work through the Taif University Researchers Supporting Project number (TURSP-2020/85), Taif University, Taif, Saudi Arabia.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Asibi, A.E.; Chai, Q.; Coulter, J.A. Rice Blast: A Disease with Implications for Global Food Security. Agronomy 2019, 9, 451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Saito, K.; Vandamme, E.; Johnson, J.-M.; Tanaka, A.; Senthilkumar, K.; Dieng, I.; Akakpo, C.; Gbaguidi, F.; Segda, Z.; Bassoro, I. Yield-limiting macronutrients for rice in sub-Saharan Africa. Geoderma 2019, 338, 546–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Dharminder; Singh, R.K.; Kumar, V.; Pramanick, B.; Alsanie, W.F.; Gaber, A.; Hossain, A. The Use of Municipal Solid Waste Compost in Combination with Proper Irrigation Scheduling Influences the Productivity, Microbial Activity and Water Use Efficiency of Direct Seeded Rice. Agriculture 2021, 11, 941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. CAPMAS. Central Agency for Public Mobilization, Statistics: Annual Bulletin of Statistical Crop Area and Plant Production 2017/2018, Egypt. Available online: https://www.capmas.gov.eg/Pages/Publications.aspx?page_id=5104&Year=23541 (accessed on 3 February 2021).
  5. Mehana, M.; Abdelrahman, M.; Emadeldin, Y.; Rohila, J.S.; Karthikeyan, R. Impact of Genetic Improvements of Rice on Its Water Use and Effects of Climate Variability in Egypt. Agriculture 2021, 11, 865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Prasad, P.V.V.; Staggenborg, S.; Ristic, Z. Impacts of drought and/or heat stress on physiological, developmental, growth, and yield processes of crop plants. Response of crops to limited water: Understanding and modeling water stress effects on plant growth processes. In Advances in Agricultural Systems Modeling; American Society of Agronomy: Madison, WI, USA, 2008; Volume 1, pp. 301–355. [Google Scholar]
  7. Sarvestani, Z.T.; Pirdashti, S.A.H.; Sanavy, M.M.; Balouchi, H. Study of water stress effects in different growth stages on yield and yield components of different rice (Oryza sativa L.) cultivars. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. PJBS 2008, 11, 1303–1309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Serraj, R.; McNally, K.L.; Slamet-Loedin, I.; Kohli, A.; Haefele, S.M.; Atlin, G.; Kumar, A. Drought Resistance Improvement in Rice: An Integrated Genetic and Resource Management Strategy. Plant Prod. Sci. 2011, 14, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Mellor, J.W. Irrigation agriculture and poverty reduction: General relationships and specific needs. In Managing Water for Poor: Workshop Proceedings; International Water Management Institute: Colombo, Sri Lanka, 2002; pp. 53–69. Available online: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/118412/files/H029688.pdf#page=56 (accessed on 1 January 2020).
  10. Farooq, M.; Kobayashi, N.; Ito, O.; Wahid, A.; Serraj, R. Broader leaves result in better performance of indica rice under drought stress. J. Plant Physiol. 2010, 167, 1066–1075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ichsan, C.N.; Basyah, B.; Zakaria, S.; Efendi, E. Differences of water status and relationship with roots growth and yield of rice under water stress. Syst. Rev. Pharm. 2020, 11, 611–618. [Google Scholar]
  12. Hussain, T.; Hussain, N.; Ahmed, M.; Nualsri, C.; Duangpan, S. Responses of Lowland Rice Genotypes under Terminal Water Stress and Identification of Drought Tolerance to Stabilize Rice Productivity in Southern Thailand. Plants 2021, 10, 2565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sidiqui, S.U.; Kummamaru, T.; Satoh, H. Pakistan rice genetic resources-I: Grain morphological diversity and its distribution. Pak. J. Bot. 2007, 39, 841–848. [Google Scholar]
  14. Sattari, A.; Mahdinezhad, N.; Fakheri, B.; Noroozi, M.; Beshishtizadeh, H. Improvement of the eating and cooking qualities of rice: A review. Int. J. Farm Allied. Sci. 2015, 4, 153–160. [Google Scholar]
  15. Kakar, K.; Xuan, T.D.; Quan, N.V.; Wafa, I.K.; Tran, H.-D.; Khanh, T.D.; Dat, T.D. Efficacy of N-methyl-N-nitrosourea (MNU) mutation on enhancing the yield and quality of rice. Agriculture 2019, 9, 212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Singh, B.; Reddy, K.R.; Redoña, E.D.; Walker, T. Screening of rice cultivars for morpho-physiological responses to early-season soil moisture stress. Rice Sci. 2017, 24, 322–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Yue, B.; Xue, W.; Xiong, L.; Yu, X.; Luo, L.; Cui, K.; Jin, D.; Xing, Y.; Zhang, Q. Genetic basis of drought resistance at reproductive stage in rice: Separation of drought tolerance from drought avoidance. Genetics 2006, 172, 1213–1228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Todaka, D.; Shinozaki, K.; Yamaguchi-shinozaki, K. Recent advances in the dissection of drought-stress regulatory networks and strategies for development of drought-tolerant transgenic rice plants. Front. Plant Sci. 2015, 6, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. IRRI. Standard Evaluation System for Rice, 5th ed.; The Philippines International Rice Research Institute: Los Banos, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  20. Fischer, R.A.; Maurer, R. Drought resistance in spring wheat cultivars. I. Grain yield responses. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 1978, 29, 897–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Rosielle, A.A.; Hamblin, J. Theoretical aspects of selection for yield in stress and non-stress environments. Crop Sci. 1981, 21, 943–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bouslama, M.; Schapaugh, W.T. Stress tolerance in soybeans. I. Evaluation of three screening techniques for heat and drought tolerance. Crop Sci. 1984, 24, 933–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Clarke, J.M.; Townley-Smith, F.; McCaig, T.N.; Green, D.G.G. Growth analysis of spring wheat cultivars of varying drought resistance. Crop Sci. 1984, 24, 537–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hossain, A.B.S.; Sears, R.G.; Cox, T.S.; Paulsen, G.M. Desiccation tolerance and its relationship to assimilate partitioning in winter wheat. Crop Sci. 1990, 30, 622–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Fernandez, G.C. Effective selection criteria for assessing plant stress tolerance. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Adaptation of Vegetables and other Food Crops in Temperature and Water Stress, Shanhua, Taiwan, 13–16 August 1992; pp. 257–270. [Google Scholar]
  26. Schneider, K.A.; Rosales-serna, R.; Ibarra-perez, F.; Cazares-enriquez, B.; Acosta-gallegos, J.A.; Ramirez-vallejo, P.; Wassimi, N.; Kelly, J.D. Improving common bean performance under drought stress. Crop Sci. 1997, 37, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Rashid, A.; Saleem, Q.; Nazir, A.; Kazım, H.S. Yield potential and stability of nine wheat varieties under water stress conditions. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2003, 5, 7–9. [Google Scholar]
  28. Anwar, J.; Subhani, G.M.M.; Hussain, M.; Ahmad, J.; Hussain, M.; Munir, M. Drought tolerance indices and their correlation with yield in exotic wheat genotypes. Pak. J. Bot. 2011, 43, 1527–1530. [Google Scholar]
  29. Mansour, E.; Desoky, E.S.M.; Ali, M.M.A.; Abdul-Hamid, M.I.; Ullah, H.; Attia, A.; Datta, A. Identifying drought-tolerant genotypes of faba bean and their agro-physiological responses to different water regimes in an arid Mediterranean environment. Agric. Water Manag. 2021, 247, 106754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wasae, A. Evaluation of drought stress tolerance based on selection indices in Haricot Bean varieties exposed to stress at different growth stages. Int. J. Agron. 2021, 2021, 6617874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Mitra, J. Genetics and genetic improvement of drought resistance in crop plants. Curr. Sci. 2001, 80, 758–762. [Google Scholar]
  32. Blum, A. Plant Breeding for Stress Environments; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2018; p. 212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Griffing, B. Concept of general and specific combining ability in relation to diallel crossing systems. Aust. J. Biol. Sci. 1956, 9, 463–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Aly, R.S.H. Relationship between combining ability of grain yield and yield components for some newly yellow maize inbred lines via line 9 tester analysis. Alex. J. Agric. Res. 2013, 58, 115–124. [Google Scholar]
  35. El-Mowafi, H.F.; AlKahtani, M.D.F.; Abdallah, R.M.; Reda, A.M.; Attia, K.A.; El-Hity, M.A.; El-Dabaawy, H.E.; Husnain, L.A.; Al-Ateeq, T.K.; EL-Esawi, M.A. Combining Ability and Gene Action for Yield Characteristics in Novel Aromatic Cytoplasmic Male Sterile Hybrid Rice under Water-Stress Conditions. Agriculture 2021, 11, 226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kempthorne, O. An Introduction to Genetic Studies; John Willey Sons Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1957; pp. 458–471. [Google Scholar]
  37. Dey, S.S.; Bhatia, R.; Bhardwaj, I.; Mishra, V.; Sharma, K.; Parkash, C. Molecular-agronomic characterization and genetic study reveals usefulness of refined Ogura cytoplasm based CMS lines in hybrid breeding of cauliflower (Brassica oleracea var. botrytis L.). Sci. Hortic. 2017, 224, 27–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Virmani, S.S.S.; Sun, Z.X.X.; Mou, T.M.; Ali, A.J.; Mao, C.X. Two Lines Hybrid Rice Breeding Manual; International Rice Research Institute: Los Banos, Philippines, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  39. Panse, V.G.; Sukhatme, P.V. Statistical Methods for Agricultural Workers; ICAR: New Delhi, India, 1954; 227p. [Google Scholar]
  40. Singh, R.K.; Chaudhary, B.D. Biometrical Methods in Quantitative Genetic Analysis; Kalyani Publishers: Ludhiana, India, 1977; p. 300. [Google Scholar]
  41. El-Rouby, M.M. Statistical Genetics for Plant Breeding Methods; Research Notes; University of Alexandria: Alexandria, Egypt, 2009; pp. 51–54. [Google Scholar]
  42. SAS JMP®. Data Analysis Software; Version 15; SAS Institute Inc.: Cary, NC, USA, 2013; Available online: http://www.jmp.com/ (accessed on 15 February 2022).
  43. Awad-Allah, M.M.A.; Elekhtyar, N.M.; El-Abd, M.A.-E.-M.; Abdelkader, M.F.M.; Mahmoud, M.H.; Mohamed, A.H.; El-Diasty, M.Z.; Said, M.M.M.; Shamseldin, S.A.M.; Abdein, M.A. Development of New Restorer Lines Carrying Some Restoring Fertility Genes with Flowering, Yield and Grains Quality Characteristics in Rice (Oryza sativa L.). Genes 2022, 13, 458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Kumar, S.; Dwivedi, S.; Singh, S.; Jha, S.; Lekshmy, S.; Elanchezhian, R.; Singh, O.; Bhatt, B. Identification of drought tolerant rice genotypes by analysing drought tolerance indices and morpho-physiological traits. SABRAO J. Breed. Genet. 2014, 46, 217–230. [Google Scholar]
  45. Awad-Allah, M.M.A. Application of Genetic Engineering Tools on Rice Genome. Master’s Thesis, Al-Azhar University Faculty of Agriculture, Cairo, Egypt, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  46. Awad-Allah, M.M.A. Integrated Restorer Fertility and Wide Compatibility Genes for Producing Promising Restorer Lines in Rice. Ph.D. Thesis, Al-Azhar University Faculty of Agriculture, Cairo, Egypt, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  47. Awad-Allah, M.M.A.; Mohamed, A.H.; El-Bana, M.A.; El-Okkiah, S.A.F.; Abdelkader, M.F.M.; Mahmoud, M.H.; El-Diasty, M.Z.; Said, M.M.M.; Shamseldin, S.A.M.; Abdein, M.A. Assessment of Genetic Variability and Bran Oil Characters of New Developed Restorer Lines of Rice (Oryza sativa L.). Genes 2022, 13, 509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Dixit, S.; Singh, A.; Kumar, A. Rice breeding for high grain yield under drought: A strategic solution to a complex problem. Int. J. Agron. 2014, 2014, 863683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Oladosu, Y.; Rafii, M.Y.; Samuel, C.; Fatai, A.; Magaji, U.; Kareem, I.; Kamarudin, Z.S.; Muhammad, I.I.; Kolapo, K. Drought resistance in rice from conventional to molecular breeding: A review. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 3519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Vikram, P.; Swamy, B.M.; Dixit, S.; Ahmed, H.U.; Cruz, M.T.S.; Singh, A.K.; Kumar, A. qDTY 1.1, a major QTL for rice grain yield under reproductive-stage drought stress with a consistent effect in multiple elite genetic backgrounds. BMC Genet. 2011, 12, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  51. Ren, M.; Huang, M.; Qiu, H.; Chun, Y.; Li, L.; Kumar, A.; Fang, J.; Zhao, J.; He, H.; Li, X. Genome-Wide Association Study of the Genetic Basis of Effective Tiller Number in Rice. Rice 2021, 14, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Atlin, G.; Lafitte, H.; Tao, D.; Laza, M.; Amante, M.; Courtois, B. Developing rice cultivars for high-fertility upland systems in the Asian tropics. Field Crop. Res. 2006, 97, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Lafitte, H.R.; Ismail, A.; Bennett, J. Abiotic stress tolerance in rice for Asia: Progress and the future. In Proceedings of the 4th International Crop Science Congress, Brisbane, Australia, 26 September–1 October 2004; Volume 26, p. 1137. [Google Scholar]
  54. Abd-Allah, A.A.; Badawy, S.A.; Zayed, B.A.; El-Gohary, A.A. The role of root system traits in the drought tolerance of rice (Oryza sativa L.). J. Plant Prod. 2010, 1, 621–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Wang, B.; Xu, B.; Liu, Y.; Chen, X.; Liu, J.; Zhi, W.; Xing, Y.; Yang, B.; Li, J.; Chi, M.; et al. Variation of drought resistance of rice genotypes released in different years in China. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2019, 99, 4430–4438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ahmed, M.; Haq, M.E.; Hossain, M.M.; Md SaM, H.M. Performance of four different rice cultivars under drought Stress in the North-Western Part of Bangladesh. Int. J. Agric. For. 2017, 7, 134–139. [Google Scholar]
  57. El-Refaee, I.S.; Gorgy, R.N.; Metwally, T.F. Response of some rice cultivars to plant spacing for improving grain yield and productivity under different irrigation intervals. Alex. J. Agric. Res. 2012, 57, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  58. Gewaily, E.E.; Amera, T.; Mohammed; Abd El-Rahem, W.T. Effect of different irrigation regimes on productivity and cooking quality of some rice varieties. World J. Agric. Sci. 2019, 15, 341–354. [Google Scholar]
  59. Zaman, N.K.; Bdullah, M.Y.; Othman, S. Growth and physiological performance of aerobic and lowland rice as affected by water stress at selected growth stages. Rice Sci. 2018, 25, 82–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Swamy, B.M.; Shamsudin, N.A.A.; Abd Rahman, S.N.; Mauleon, R.; Ratnam, W.; Cruz, M.T.S.; Kumar, A. Association mapping of yield and yield-related traits under reproductive stage drought stress in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Rice 2017, 10, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  61. Gogarten, S.M.; Sofer, T.; Chen, H.; Yu, C.; Brody, J.A.; Thornton, T.A.; Rice, K.M.M.; Conomos, M.P. Genetic association testing using the GENESIS R/Bioconductor package. Bioinformatics 2019, 35, 5346–5348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Herwibawa, B.; Sakhidin; Haryanto, T.A. Agronomic performances of aromatic and nonaromatic M1 rice under drought stress. Open Agric. 2019, 4, 575–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Leonilo, V.G.; Joanne, D.C.; Enriquez, J.O.S. Heterosis and combining ability analysis in CMS hybrid rice. Euphytica 2020, 216, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Zubaer, M.A.; Chowdhury, A.K.B.; Islam, M.Z.; Ahmed, T.; Hasan, M.A. Effects of water stress on growth and yield attributes of Aman rice genotypes. Int. J. Sustain. Crop Prod. 2007, 2, 25–30. [Google Scholar]
  65. Ismaila, A.; Echekwe, C.A. Genetics of some Agronomic and Yield Traits in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Int. J. Sci. Res. 2012, 1, 1311–1322. [Google Scholar]
  66. Malemba, G.M.; Nzuve, F.M.; Kimani, J.M.; Olubayo, M.F.; Muthomi, J.W. Combining ability for drought tolerance in upland rice varieties at reproductive stage. J. Agric. Sci. 2017, 9, 138–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Awad-allah, M.M.A. Identification and Evaluation of Some New Hybrids of Rice Under Egyptian Conditions. J. Agric. Chem. Biotechnol. 2016, 7, 121–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Ramesh, C.; Raju, C.D.; Raju, C.S.; Varma, N.R. Combining ability and gene action in hybrid rice. Int. J. Pure App. Biosci. 2018, 6, 497–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. El-Hadi, A.H.A.; El-Adl, A.M.M.; Draz, A.E.; Refai, R.M.H.G. Evaluation of Combining Ability and Heterosis for Yield and Its Components Traits of Rice under Normal Irrigation and Drought Stress Conditions. J. Agric. Chem. Biotechnol. 2020, 11, 189–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Awad-Allah, M.M.A.; Attia, K.A.; El-Gohary, A.A.; Mikhael, B.B. Combining ability and gene action of grain yield and its components for some parental lines used in hybrid rice production. Egypt. J. Agric. Res. 2015, 93, 187–216. [Google Scholar]
  71. Latha, S.; Sharma, D.; Sanghera, G.S.S. Combining ability and heterosis for grain yield and its components in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Not. Sci. Biol. 2013, 5, 90–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Yuga, M.E.E.; Kimani, P.M.; Olubayo, M.F.; Muthomi, J.W.; Nzuve, F.M. Combining ability of heterosis for agronomic and yield traits in indica and japonica rice crosses. J. Agric. Sci. 2018, 10, 92–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Awad-Allah, M.M.A. Heterosis and Combining ability Estimates using Line × Tester Analysis to Develop Wide Compatibility and Restorer Lines in Rice. J. Agric. Chem. Biotechnol. 2020, 11, 383–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Huang, M.; Chen, L.Y.; Chen, Z.Q. Diallel analysis of combining ability and heterosis for yield and yield components in rice by using positive loci. Euphytica 2015, 205, 37–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Hasan, M.J.; Kulsum, M.U.; Hossain, E.; Hossain, M.M.; Rahman, M.M.; Rahmat, N.M.F. Combining ability analysis for identifying elite parents for heterotic rice hybrids. Acad. J. Agric. Res. 2015, 3, 70–75. [Google Scholar]
  76. Fasahat, P.; Rajabi, A.; Rad, M.J.; Derera, J. Principles and utilization of combining ability in plant breeding. Biom. Biostat. Int. J. 2016, 4, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Tyagi, V.; Dhillon, S.K.; Kaushik, P.; Kaur, G. Characterization for Drought tolerance and physiological efficiency in novel cytoplasmic male sterile sources of sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Agronomy 2018, 8, 232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Waza, S.A.A.; Jaiswal, H.K.K.; Sravan, T.; Priyanka, K.; Bano, D.A.A.; Rai, V.P. Combining ability analysis for various yield and quality traits in rice (Oryza sativa L.). J. Appl. Nat. Sci. 2015, 7, 865–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Aditya, J.P.; Bhartiya, A. Combining ability analysis for yield and components traits in fine grain rice of Mid Hills of Uttarakhand. J. Rice Res. 2015, 8, 15–22. [Google Scholar]
  80. Awad-Allah, M.M.A.; Elekhtyar, N.M.; Said, M.M.; Abdein, M.A.; Shamseldin, S.A.M. Gene Action and Genetic Improvement of Parental Lines in Hybrid Rice for Developing New Hybrids. J. Appl. Sci. 2022, 22, 55–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Awad-Allah, M.M.A.; Attia, K.A.; Omar, A.A.; Dessoky, E.S.; Alzuaibr, F.M.; Alshehri, M.A.; Abdein, M.A.; Mohamed, A.H. Development of New Iso-Cytoplasmic Rice-Restorer Lines and New Rice Hybrids with Superior Grain Yield and Grain-Quality Characteristics by Utilizing Restorers’ Fertility Genes. Genes 2022, 13, 808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Genes 13 00906 g001 550
Figure 1. The performance of 1000-grain weight for the newly developed hybrids and their parental rice lines under the three irrigation regimes (6, 9, and 12 days). ‡: control hybrid. Bar represents the LSD at 5%; 0.8, 0.8, and 0.7 for the 6-, 9-, and 12-day irrigation regimes, respectively.
Figure 1. The performance of 1000-grain weight for the newly developed hybrids and their parental rice lines under the three irrigation regimes (6, 9, and 12 days). ‡: control hybrid. Bar represents the LSD at 5%; 0.8, 0.8, and 0.7 for the 6-, 9-, and 12-day irrigation regimes, respectively.
Genes 13 00906 g001
Genes 13 00906 g002 550
Figure 2. The performance of grain yield per plant (A) and yield reduction (B) for the newly developed hybrids and their parental lines of rice under three irrigation regimes; 6, 9, and 12 days. YRDI: yield reduction index. ‡: control hybrid. Bar represents the LSD at 5%; 6.6, 6.1, and 4.9 for the 6-, 9-, and 12-day irrigation regimes, respectively.
Figure 2. The performance of grain yield per plant (A) and yield reduction (B) for the newly developed hybrids and their parental lines of rice under three irrigation regimes; 6, 9, and 12 days. YRDI: yield reduction index. ‡: control hybrid. Bar represents the LSD at 5%; 6.6, 6.1, and 4.9 for the 6-, 9-, and 12-day irrigation regimes, respectively.
Genes 13 00906 g002
Genes 13 00906 g003 550
Figure 3. Two-way hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) of individual response variables assessed in rice hybrids cultivated under three different irrigation regimes of 6, 9, and 12 days. Variations in the dependent variables among the studied rice hybrids are visualized as a heat map. Dependent variables are presented in rows, while different treatments are presented in the column. The map presents high numerical values in red and low numerical values in green (the scale is at the bottom left corner of the heat map). *: Line cultivar and ‡: the check verity.
Figure 3. Two-way hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) of individual response variables assessed in rice hybrids cultivated under three different irrigation regimes of 6, 9, and 12 days. Variations in the dependent variables among the studied rice hybrids are visualized as a heat map. Dependent variables are presented in rows, while different treatments are presented in the column. The map presents high numerical values in red and low numerical values in green (the scale is at the bottom left corner of the heat map). *: Line cultivar and ‡: the check verity.
Genes 13 00906 g003
Genes 13 00906 g004 550
Figure 4. Principal component analysis (PCA) and two-way hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) of individual response variables in the tested rice hybrids cultivated under three irrigation regimes (6, 9, and 12 days). (A) PCA-associated scatters and PCA-associated loading plots. (B) Two-way HCA. Variations in the dependent variables between studied treatments are presented as a heat map. Dependent variables are presented in rows, while different treatments are presented in columns. The map presents high numerical values in red and low numerical values in green (the scale is at the bottom left corner of the heat map).
Figure 4. Principal component analysis (PCA) and two-way hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) of individual response variables in the tested rice hybrids cultivated under three irrigation regimes (6, 9, and 12 days). (A) PCA-associated scatters and PCA-associated loading plots. (B) Two-way HCA. Variations in the dependent variables between studied treatments are presented as a heat map. Dependent variables are presented in rows, while different treatments are presented in columns. The map presents high numerical values in red and low numerical values in green (the scale is at the bottom left corner of the heat map).
Genes 13 00906 g004
Table
Table 1. Hybrid names, codes, and parentage of the studied genotypes.
Table 1. Hybrid names, codes, and parentage of the studied genotypes.
Female ParentsCodeMale Parents (Parentage)CodeHybrids
Gang46A (G46A) Parentage (Erjiu’ai 7/V41B//Zhenshan 97/Ya’aizao)L1NRL 2 (IR69A/Giza178)T1L1 × T1
NRL 9 (IR69A/Giza178)T2L1 × T2
NRL 10 (IR69A/Giza178)T3L1 × T3
NRL 11 (IR69A/Giza178)T4L1 × T4
NRL 12 (IR69A/Giza178)T5L1 × T5
NRL 29 (G46A/BG33-5)T6L1 × T6
NRL 42 (G46A/BG33-5)T7L1 × T7
NRL 43 (G46A/BG33-5)T8L1 × T8
NRL 44 (G46A/BG33-5)T9L1 × T9
NRL 47 (IR69A/ BG34-8)T10L1 × T10
NRL 50 (G46A/BG34-8)T11L1 × T11
T12 (Giza175/Milyang 49)T12L1 × T12
IR69625A (IR69A)L2NRL 2 (IR69A/Giza178)T1L2 × T1
NRL 9 (IR69A/Giza178)T2L2 × T2
NRL 10 (IR69A/Giza178)T3L2 × T3
NRL 11 (IR69A/Giza178)T4L2 × T4
NRL 12 (IR69A/Giza178)T5L2 × T5
NRL 29 (G46A/BG33-5)T6L2 × T6
NRL 42 (G46A/BG33-5)T7L2 × T7
NRL 43 (G46A/BG33-5)T8L2 × T8
NRL 44 (G46A/BG33-5)T9L2 × T9
NRL 47 (IR69A/ BG34-8)T10L2 × T10
NRL 50 (G46A/BG34-8)T11L2 × T11
Giza178 (Giza175/Milyang 49)T12L2 × T12 *
* Control hybrid.
Table
Table 2. Mean performance for days to heading, plant height, and the number of panicles/plant of the studied genotypes.
Table 2. Mean performance for days to heading, plant height, and the number of panicles/plant of the studied genotypes.
Traits GenotypesDays to 50% HeadingPlant Height (cm)No. of Panicles/Plant
6 D9 D12 D6 D9 D12 D6 D9 D12 D
L1 *80.279.077.988.781.073.417.616.414.7
L2 *100.198.798.0104.387.772.419.217.615.2
T1103.0104.3105.8119.697.285.815.216.316.2
T2101.0102.7104.4106.493.081.320.017.318.5
T3102.0103.1104.7110.092.888.218.217.716.8
T497.098.8100.0110.994.288.021.219.618.8
T599.4101.5103.497.385.779.819.319.314.5
T690.091.192.1115.9102.897.517.516.515.3
T790.691.692.392.379.874.719.718.718.3
T887.087.888.890.777.775.220.221.315.8
T987.087.888.892.878.274.217.019.115.3
T10101.0102.3103.8103.981.369.021.318.021.3
T11105.0106.0107.2138.991.3101.519.718.316.7
T12101.699.897.9104.284.880.518.516.414.6
L1 × T1103.0101.9100.4112.2101.998.228.526.421.8
L2 × T1101.8100.799.5108.2102.598.914.713.912.3
L1 × T2102.2100.799.5105.8100.697.019.918.817.7
L2 × T2101.4100.399.291.887.383.820.319.017.7
L1 × T3101.1100.098.6103.999.294.021.721.019.7
L2 × T3100.498.797.589.785.079.223.022.018.9
L1 × T498.497.496.099.895.591.822.321.218.7
L2 × T499.898.597.286.480.079.622.120.919.5
L1 × T5100.699.498.1101.296.392.423.722.621.0
L2 × T599.898.196.188.583.679.516.014.011.5
L1 × T6100.299.097.292.489.377.517.816.220.3
L2 × T699.297.996.698.689.766.324.623.713.5
L1 × T7101.099.197.1106.596.583.322.821.312.1
L2 × T7100.098.196.192.281.774.422.521.012.3
L1 × T899.1100.4101.898.098.284.719.718.516.0
L2 × T897.699.0101.183.883.770.721.420.518.3
L1 × T999.4100.7102.695.897.085.018.416.511.8
L2 × T998.099.6101.778.878.777.521.720.922.2
L1 × T10102.1100.398.392.092.586.120.619.217.6
L2 × T10101.499.697.993.089.484.632.726.723.7
L1 × T11106.4107.9109.2120.2108.1103.428.326.122.1
L2 × T11104.6105.2106.2105.494.791.622.921.618.9
L1 × T12103.4101.299.9124.898.091.024.523.321.4
L2 × T12 ‡102.299.698.2108.490.684.620.819.217.1
L.S.D. 5%0.720.40.44.414.933.932.02.31.9
L.S.D. 1%0.960.60.55.866.545.212.73.02.6
L.S.D.: least significant difference. ‡: control hybrid. L1 * and L2 *: data recorded on the maintainer line; 6 D: 6 days, 9 D: 9 days, 12 D: 12 days.
Table
Table 3. Mean performance of grain yield and its contributing traits for the studied genotypes.
Table 3. Mean performance of grain yield and its contributing traits for the studied genotypes.
Traits GenotypesPanicle Length (cm)No. of Spikelets/PanicleNo. of Filled Grains/Panicle
6 D9 D12 D6 D9 D12 D6 D9 D12 D
L1 *23.520.318.3174.2156.1120.7162.0140.3103.0
L2 *22.619.517.6132.5118.891.7123.1105.777.2
T126.623.121.1238.5170.8140.3220.9151.2120.5
T222.118.919.5143.8122.4114.3137.5115.5105.1
T321.821.020.4143.6139.8124.7136.7133.1116.6
T422.321.120.3151.6127.5109.6144.5121.6101.2
T521.620.419.2170.5147.0118.3166.1142.9114.6
T623.623.820.0165.8202.3146.4161.1171.4117.5
T720.018.918.1141.3113.483.8131.897.175.4
T820.918.318.4126.2135.195.9116.6120.782.2
T921.319.817.6153.0122.7100.5141.1110.178.7
T1023.022.920.8150.0114.886.2143.4109.776.5
T1128.424.324.7222.3194.9169.1213.5174.5147.2
T1222.620.319.7192.6165.5135.1174.1151.3106.0
L1 × T126.723.120.8273.6223.8161.8233.6183.1128.4
L2 × T123.522.220.2153.5120.0100.2137.9106.886.4
L1 × T225.022.421.3248.8211.4197.2241.2202.6179.0
L2 × T224.220.819.8187.7159.5148.8176.4148.0134.3
L1 × T324.721.721.1194.1173.4173.7169.4136.1135.1
L2 × T323.422.420.4186.9182.0162.3180.9170.7147.3
L1 × T424.522.720.3204.7172.0150.2199.1165.0117.5
L2 × T425.423.121.6211.2177.6154.7207.8174.2151.9
L1 × T524.122.821.4278.7239.8192.8270.3229.7180.8
L2 × T524.122.421.3219.9188.8151.5204.4173.4136.9
L1 × T622.321.117.3180.9161.8102.4168.0142.481.1
L2 × T622.320.818.9209.8169.0122.0205.5155.6107.0
L1 × T724.122.817.7325.8261.8187.2318.3251.3168.9
L2 × T722.420.716.4232.5186.6137.6218.9172.6126.6
L1 × T825.923.917.9282.3262.6228.4276.7254.1213.0
L2 × T824.122.016.6200.6187.4163.1194.0179.0153.3
L1 × T924.222.619.0270.6217.0183.4261.7204.5171.2
L2 × T923.521.919.4246.0197.0160.8241.4189.0153.4
L1 × T1024.723.621.2250.9191.8143.9226.2171.9124.6
L2 × T1024.824.021.8203.3155.5116.7180.0137.094.4
L1 × T1129.526.424.8190.6167.1145.0164.8137.0114.0
L2 × T1129.026.024.3168.7148.1128.6142.9119.099.1
L1 × T1226.423.320.3280.7250.5214.5256.3219.3175.7
L2 × T12 ‡25.122.220.2167.4149.8128.3158.5134.5107.8
L.S.D. 5%1.41.51.119.514.89.219.512.58.7
L.S.D. 1%1.82.01.525.919.612.225.916.511.5
L.S.D.: least significant difference. ‡: control hybrid. L1 * and L2 *: data recorded on the maintainer line; 6 D: 6 days, 9 D: 9 days, 12 D: 12 days.
Table
Table 4. Mean performances of grain yield and contributing traits for the studied genotypes.
Table 4. Mean performances of grain yield and contributing traits for the studied genotypes.
Traits GenotypesPanicle Weight (g)Spikelet Fertility (%)
6 D9 D12 D6 D9 D12 D
L1 *4.63.52.993.189.985.3
L2 *3.62.82.393.189.184.2
T16.63.72.792.688.886.0
T24.42.92.695.694.491.9
T34.03.02.795.295.293.5
T44.33.42.695.395.492.4
T54.93.62.897.497.296.8
T64.64.22.397.184.780.2
T74.12.81.793.385.690.0
T83.73.32.292.589.285.7
T94.23.42.292.389.778.4
T103.42.72.095.795.688.9
T115.74.83.696.189.787.0
T123.12.92.390.491.478.5
L1 × T15.53.42.585.481.879.3
L2 × T13.92.51.989.989.386.4
L1 × T27.05.55.097.095.990.8
L2 × T24.93.93.494.092.890.3
L1 × T36.45.65.187.378.677.8
L2 × T35.64.33.996.893.890.8
L1 × T46.14.73.497.395.978.4
L2 × T46.45.34.098.498.298.2
L1 × T58.26.35.096.995.893.8
L2 × T53.82.82.192.991.890.3
L1 × T63.53.12.192.988.279.3
L2 × T65.14.53.097.892.287.7
L1 × T79.86.85.097.796.090.3
L2 × T77.95.43.694.292.692.0
L1 × T87.66.75.898.096.893.3
L2 × T86.15.34.396.795.593.8
L1 × T97.05.74.896.794.393.5
L2 × T97.46.23.998.195.995.4
L1 × T106.45.13.790.189.786.7
L2 × T104.33.42.588.588.180.9
L1 × T114.53.93.086.582.178.7
L2 × T117.16.04.684.780.477.0
L1 × T124.33.72.791.387.681.9
L2 × T12 ‡3.83.42.594.789.884.0
L.S.D. 5%0.90.82.43.04.13.4
L.S.D. 1%1.31.03.24.05.44.5
L.S.D.: least significant difference. ‡: control hybrid. L1 * and L2 *: data recorded on the maintainer line; 6 D: 6 days, 9 D: 9 days, 12 D: 12 days.
Table
Table 5. General combining ability effects of the parental lines for days to 50% heading, plant height, no. of panicles/plant and panicle length traits.
Table 5. General combining ability effects of the parental lines for days to 50% heading, plant height, no. of panicles/plant and panicle length traits.
Traits ParentsDays to 50% HeadingPlant Height (cm)No. of Panicles/PlantPanicle Length (cm)
6 D9 D12 D6 D9 D12 D6 D9 D12 D6 D9 D12 D
L10.45 **0.52 **0.49 **5.33 **5.26 **4.74 **0.240.33 *0.60 **0.43 **0.32 **0.09
L2−0.45 **−0.52 **−0.49 **−5.33 **−5.26 **−4.74 **−0.24−0.33 *−0.60 **−0.43 **−0.32 **−0.09
L.S.D. 5%0.090.050.040.520.580.460.240.270.230.160.170.13
L.S.D. 1%0.120.070.060.740.820.660.340.380.320.230.250.19
T11.4 **1.2 **0.5 **11.2 **9.7 **12.9 **−0.5−0.5−0.7 *0.4−0.10.3
T20.8 **0.4 **−0.1−0.31.5 *4.8 **−2.0 **−1.7 **−0.1−0.2−1.1 **0.4 *
T3−0.2 *−0.8 **−1.4 **−2.3 **−0.41.00.20.9 *1.5 **−0.7 **−0.7 **0.6 **
T4−1.9 **−2.2 **−2.8 **−5.9 **−4.7 **0.10.10.41.4 **0.20.20.8 **
T5−0.8 **−1.4 **−2.3 **−4.2 **−2.5 **0.3−2.3 **−2.3 **−1.5 **−0.7 **−0.11.2 **
T6−1.2 **−1.7 **−2.5 **−3.6 **−3.0 **−13.7 **−0.9 **−0.7 *−0.8 **−2.4 **−1.8 **−2.0 **
T7−0.5 **−1.5 **−2.8 **0.3−3.4 **−6.8 **0.50.6−5.5 **−1.5 **−1.0 **−3.1 **
T8−2.6 **−0.5 **2.0 **−8.2 **−1.6 *−7.9 **−1.6 **−1.1 **−0.6 *0.20.3−2.9 **
T9−2.3 **0.022.7 **−11.8 **−4.7 **−4.4 **−2.1 **−1.9 **−0.8 *−0.9 **−0.4−1.0 **
T100.8 **−0.2 **−1.3 **−6.5 **−1.5 *−0.34.5 **2.3 **2.9 **0.021.1 **1.4 **
T114.5 **6.4 **8.3 **13.7 **8.9 **11.9 **3.5 **3.2 **2.8 **4.5 **3.5 **4.4 **
T121.8 **0.2 **−0.4 **17.5 **1.8 *2.2 **0.50.7 *1.5 **1.0 **0.040.1
L.S.D. 5%0.20.10.11.31.41.10.60.70.60.40.40.3
L.S.D. 1%0.30.20.21.82.01.60.80.90.80.60.60.5
L.S.D.: least significant difference; **: highly significant at 1%; *: significant at 5%; 6 D: 6 days, 9 D: 9 days, 12 D: 12 days.
Table
Table 6. General combining ability effects of the parental lines for no. of spikelets/panicle, no. of filled grains/panicle, panicle weight and spikelet fertility percentage traits.
Table 6. General combining ability effects of the parental lines for no. of spikelets/panicle, no. of filled grains/panicle, panicle weight and spikelet fertility percentage traits.
Traits ParentsNo. of Spikelets/PanicleNo. of Filled Grains/PaniclePanicle Weight (g)Spikelet Fertility (%)
6 D9 D12 D6 D9 D12 D6 D9 D12 D6 D9 D12 D
L124.8 **21.3 **16.9 **22.4 **18.2 **12.1 **0.4 **0.32 **0.35 **−0.4 *−0.7 **−1.8 **
L2−24.8 **−21.3 **−16.9 **−22.4 **−18.2 **−12.1 **−0.4 **−0.32 **−0.35 **0.4 *0.7 **1.8 **
L.S.D. 5%2.311.71.12.31.51.00.10.100.080.40.50.4
L.S.D. 1%3.272.51.63.32.11.40.20.140.120.50.70.6
T1−10.2 **−17.9 **−25.5 **−24.0 **−28.3 **−29.6 **−1.2 **−1.8 **−1.5 **−5.9 **−5.4 **−4.3 **
T2−5.5−4.3 *16.5 **−0.92.119.7 **0.0−0.030.5 **2.0 **3.4 **3.4 **
T3−33.2 **−12.1 **11.5 **−34.6 **−19.8 **4.2 **0.10.20.8 **−1.5 **−4.7 **−2.8 **
T4−15.8 **−15.0 **−4.0 **−6.3 *−3.6 *−2.30.30.3 *0.024.3 **6.1 **1.2 *
T525.6 **24.5 **15.7 **27.6 **28.4 **21.8 **0.1−0.2−0.11.4 **2.9 **5.0 **
T6−28.4 **−24.3 **−44.3 **−23.0 **−24.2 **−42.9 **−1.6 **−0.9 **−1.1 **1.9 **−0.8−3.6 **
T755.5 **34.4 **5.9 **58.9 **38.8 **10.8 **2.9 **1.4 **0.6 **2.5 **3.3 **4.0 **
T817.7 **35.2 **39.3 **25.6 **43.4 **46.1 **0.9 **1.3 **1.4 **3.9 **5.2 **6.4 **
T934.6 **17.2 **15.6 **41.8 **23.5 **25.3 **1.3 **1.2 **0.7 **3.9 **4.1 **7.3 **
T103.4−16.1 **−26.2 **−6.7 *−18.7 **−27.5 **−0.6 **−0.5 **−0.6 **−4.2 **−2.1 **−3.3 **
T11−44.1 **−32.2 **−19.7 **−55.9 **−45.2 **−30.4 **−0.10.20.1−7.9 **−9.7 **−9.3 **
T120.310.4 **15.0 **−2.43.7 *4.7 **−1.9 **−1.2 **−1.0 **−0.5−2.3 **−4.2 **
L.S.D. 5%5.74.32.75.63.62.50.30.20.20.91.21.0
L.S.D. 1%8.06.13.98.05.13.60.40.30.31.21.71.4
L.S.D.: least significant difference; **: highly significant at 1%; *: significant at 5%; 6 D: 6 days, 9 D: 9 days, 12 D: 12 days.
Table
Table 7. General combining ability effects of the parental lines for 1000 grain weight, grain yield/plant and grain quality traits.
Table 7. General combining ability effects of the parental lines for 1000 grain weight, grain yield/plant and grain quality traits.
Traits Parents1000 Grain Weight (g)Grain Yield/Plant (g)Hulling (%)Milling (%)Head Rice (%)
6 D9 D12 D6 D9 D12 D6 D9 D12 D6 D9 D12 D6 D9 D12 D
L10.6 **0.2 **0.33 **−0.60.10.40.130.070.011.7 **1.8 **1.3 **4.2 **4.5 **4.4 **
L2−0.6 **−0.2 **−0.33 **0.6−0.1−0.4−0.13−0.07−0.01−1.7 **−1.8 **−1.3 **−4.2 **−4.5 **−4.4 **
L.S.D. 5%0.100.090.080.80.70.60.160.170.150.170.10.10.20.50.4
L.S.D. 1%0.140.130.111.11.00.80.230.240.210.240.20.20.30.80.6
T1−1.3 **−1.8 **−2.6 **−6.8 **−5.1 **−8.5 **0.1−0.4 *−1.2 **−1.8 **−2.7 **−2.7 **3.6 **7.1 **7.3 **
T2−0.03−0.5 **−0.3 *6.0 **3.9 **5.7 **−0.2−0.4 *−0.7 **−0.7 **−0.5 **−1.3 **2.2 **3.7 **−2.2 **
T30.21.1 **0.8 **4.6 **3.9 **7.7 **−1.6 **−0.6 **−0.5 *−0.10.6 **0.4 *−0.5−0.1−0.8
T41.0 **0.6 **1.0 **5.4 **3.6 **5.4 **−0.1−0.4−0.20.0030.20.8 **0.40.210.6 **
T50.010.6 **−0.1−4.5 **−4.4 **−1.01.5 **0.9 **0.20.7 **1.0 **0.9 **0.3−0.1−0.3
T61.1 **0.9 **−0.8 **3.2 **3.3 **−3.0 **−0.4 *−0.7 **−0.3−0.8 **−1.0 **−1.6 **−1.6 **−0.0040.5
T71.2 **1.6 **1.5 **11.4 **8.1 **−4.7 **−0.10.1−1.3 **−1.2 **−1.3 **−1.8 **−6.1 **−5.4 **−12.4 **
T8−0.10.7 **1.2 **2.5 *3.4 **0.3−0.5 *0.1−0.4 *−0.5 *−0.6 **0.3−7.3 **−7.7 **−10.2 **
T9−0.4 **−0.20.9 **2.5 *6.4 **14.9 **−0.3−0.11.7 **−0.8 **0.12.5 **−8.0 **−7.6 **−0.6
T100.10.3 *1.2 **3.0 **−0.7−0.30.6 **1.0 **1.3 **3.5 **3.9 **2.2 **5.6 **−0.2−0.7
T110.2−1.3 **−1.1 **−16.0 **−12.5 **−10.7 **0.8 **0.9 **1.8 **0.5 *0.7 **2.0 **6.7 **8.4 **7.9 **
T12−2.0 **−2.0 **−1.5 **−11.3 **−9.9 **−5.7 **0.4−0.3−0.5 *1.3 **−0.4 *−1.7 **4.8 **1.7 *1.2 *
L.S.D. 5%0.20.20.21.91.81.40.40.40.40.40.30.30.61.31.1
L.S.D. 1%0.30.30.32.72.52.00.60.60.50.60.50.50.81.81.5
L.S.D.: least significant difference; **: highly significant at 1%; *: significant at 5%; 6 D: 6 days, 9 D: 9 days, 12 D: 12 days.
Table
Table 8. Specific combining ability effects of the crosses for days to 50% heading, plant height, no. of panicles/plant and panicle length traits.
Table 8. Specific combining ability effects of the crosses for days to 50% heading, plant height, no. of panicles/plant and panicle length traits.
Traits TesterDays to 50% HeadingPlant Height (cm)No. of Panicles/PlantPanicle Length (cm)
6 D9 D12 D6 D9 D12 D6 D9 D12 D6 D9 D12 D
L1 × T10.150.09−0.02−3.35 **−5.55 **−5.12 **6.66 **5.95 **4.16 **1.14 **0.150.20
L2 × T1−0.15−0.090.033.35 **5.55 **5.12 **−6.66 **−5.95 **−4.16 **−1.14 **−0.15−0.20
L1 × T2−0.05−0.36 **−0.31 **1.651.351.84 *−0.45−0.41−0.60−0.0050.440.66 *
L2 × T20.050.36 **0.31 **−1.65−1.35−1.84 *0.450.410.600.005−0.44−0.66 *
L1 × T3−0.100.130.091.751.842.68 **−0.87 *−0.81−0.200.22−0.67 *0.27
L2 × T30.10−0.13−0.09−1.75−1.84−2.68 **0.87 *0.810.20−0.220.67 *−0.27
L1 × T4−1.15 **−1.09 **−1.09 **1.352.47 *1.39−0.12−0.15−1.00 *−0.87 **−0.53−0.71 **
L2 × T41.15 **1.09 **1.09 **−1.35−2.47 *−1.390.120.151.00 *0.87 **0.530.71 **
L1 × T5−0.050.110.54 **1.061.091.73 *3.61 **4.00 **4.13 **−0.40−0.12−0.07
L2 × T50.05−0.11−0.54 **−1.06−1.09−1.73 *−3.61 **−4.00 **−4.13 **0.390.120.07
L1 × T60.070.01−0.18 *−8.41 **−5.43 **0.84−3.64 **−4.10 **2.81 **−0.45−0.18−0.89 **
L2 × T6−0.07−0.010.18 *8.41 **5.43 **−0.843.64 **4.10 **−2.81 **0.450.180.89 **
L1 × T70.05−0.020.021.802.15 *−0.26−0.09−0.16−0.700.410.72 *0.54 *
L2 × T7−0.050.02−0.02−1.80−2.15 *0.260.090.160.70−0.41−0.72 *−0.54 *
L1 × T80.30 *0.16−0.131.771.992.23 *−1.09 *−1.31 *−1.74 **0.450.61 *0.55 *
L2 × T8−0.30 *−0.160.13−1.77−1.99−2.23 *1.09 *1.31 *1.74 **−0.45−0.61 *−0.55 *
L1 × T90.250.03−0.013.19 **3.90 **−0.97−1.89 **−2.55 **−5.79 **−0.090.01−0.29
L2 × T9−0.25−0.030.01−3.19 **−3.90 **0.971.89 **2.55 **5.79 **0.09−0.010.29
L1 × T10−0.10−0.17−0.28 **−5.81 **−3.71 **−3.97 **−6.25 **−4.10 **−3.62 **−0.47−0.55−0.37
L2 × T100.100.170.27 **5.81 **3.71 **3.97 **6.25 **4.10 **3.62 **0.470.550.37
L1 × T110.45 **0.83 **1.01 **2.10 *1.471.172.48 **1.92 **1.00 *−0.16−0.100.17
L2 × T11−0.45 **−0.83 **−1.01 **−2.10 *−1.47−1.17−2.48 **−1.92 **−1.00 *0.160.10−0.17
L1 × T120.150.29 **0.34 **2.90 **−1.57−1.561.63 **1.70 **1.55 **0.230.20−0.03
L2 × T12 ‡−0.15−0.29 **−0.34 **−2.90 **1.571.56−1.63 **−1.70 **−1.55 **−0.23−0.200.03
L.S.D. 5%0.30.20.21.82.01.60.80.90.80.60.60.5
L.S.D. 1%0.40.20.22.62.92.31.21.31.10.80.90.7
L.S.D.: least significant difference; **: highly significant at 1%; *: significant at 5%; ‡: control hybrid; 6 D: 6 days, 9 D: 9 days, 12 D: 12 days.
Table
Table 9. Specific combining ability effects of the crosses for no. of spikelets/panicle, no. of filled grains/panicle, panicle weight and spikelet fertility percentage traits.
Table 9. Specific combining ability effects of the crosses for no. of spikelets/panicle, no. of filled grains/panicle, panicle weight and spikelet fertility percentage traits.
Traits TesterNo. of Spikelets/PanicleNo. of Filled Grains/PaniclePanicle Weight (g)Spikelet Fertility (%)
6 D9 D12 D6 D9 D12 D6 D9 D12 D6 D9 D12 D
L1 × T135.31 **30.56 **13.90 **25.45 **19.93 **8.88 **0.380.10−0.07−1.87 **−3.00 **−1.72 *
L2 × T1−35.31 **−30.56 **−13.90 **−25.45 **−19.93 **−8.88 **−0.38−0.100.071.87 **3.00 **1.72 *
L1 × T25.824.627.29 **10.02 *9.07 **10.24 **0.62 **0.52 **0.42 **1.91 **2.27 *2.06 **
L2 × T2−5.82−4.62−7.29 **−10.02 *−9.07 **−10.24 **−0.62 **−0.52 **−0.42 **−1.91 **−2.27 *−2.06 **
L1 × T3−21.16 **−25.59 **−11.21 **−28.11 **−35.52 **−18.22 **0.0030.37 *0.28−4.33 **−6.89 **−4.67 **
L2 × T321.16 **25.59 **11.21 **28.11 **35.52 **18.22 **0.003−0.37 *−0.284.33 **6.89 **4.67 **
L1 × T4−28.02 **−24.12 **−19.16 **−26.71 **−22.85 **−29.31 **−0.58 *−0.59 **−0.63 **−0.16−0.38−8.08 **
L2 × T428.02 **24.12 **19.16 **26.71 **22.85 **29.31 **0.58 *0.59 **0.63 **0.160.388.08 **
L1 × T54.634.193.7410.54 *9.93 **9.83 **1.81 **1.44 **1.08 **2.43 **2.74 **3.54 **
L2 × T5−4.63−4.19−3.74−10.54 *−9.93 **−9.83 **−1.81 **−1.44 **−1.08 **−2.43 **−2.74 **−3.54 **
L1 × T6−39.21 **−24.94 **−26.71 **−41.10 **−24.83 **−25.07 **−1.19 **−1.05 **−0.79 **−2.08 **−1.27−2.41 **
L2 × T639.21 **24.94 **26.71 **41.10 **24.83 **25.07 **1.19 **1.05 **0.79 **2.08 **1.272.41 **
L1 × T721.89 **16.27 **7.89 **27.32 **21.15 **9.04 **0.52 *0.41 *0.33 *2.14 **2.45 **0.93
L2 × T7−21.89 **−16.27 **−7.89 **−27.32 **−21.15 **−9.04 **−0.52 *−0.41 *−0.33 *−2.14 **−2.45 **−0.93
L1 × T816.08 **16.28 **15.75 **18.99 **19.33 **17.73 **0.310.40 *0.43 **1.071.391.50 *
L2 × T8−16.08 **−16.28 **−15.75 **−18.99 **−19.33 **−17.73 **−0.31−0.40 *−0.43 **−1.07−1.39−1.50 *
L1 × T9−12.46 **−11.33 **−5.61 **−12.20 **−10.47 **−3.22−0.62 **−0.57 **0.07−0.29−0.070.80
L2 × T912.46 **11.33 **5.61 **12.20 **10.47 **3.220.62 **0.57 **−0.070.290.07−0.80
L1 × T10−0.93−3.16−3.340.70−0.752.960.64 **0.52 **0.251.181.524.66 **
L2 × T100.933.163.34−0.700.75−2.96−0.64 **−0.52 **−0.25−1.18−1.52−4.66 **
L1 × T11−13.84 **−11.80 **−8.73 **−11.43 **−9.18 **−4.67 *−1.70 **−1.40 **−1.16 **1.30 *1.572.61 **
L2 × T1113.84 **11.80 **8.73 **11.43 **9.18 **4.67 *1.70 **1.40 **1.16 **−1.30 *−1.57−2.61 **
L1 × T1231.87 **29.02 **26.19 **26.52 **24.20 **21.83 **−0.18−0.14−0.22−1.29 *−0.350.77
L2 × T12 ‡ −31.87 **−29.02 **−26.19 **−26.52 **−24.20 **−21.83 **0.180.140.221.29 *0.35−0.77
L.S.D. 5%8.06.13.98.05.13.60.40.30.31.21.71.4
L.S.D. 1%11.38.65.511.37.25.00.60.50.41.82.41.9
L.S.D.: least significant difference; **: highly significant at 1%; *: significant at 5%; ‡: control hybrid; 6 D: 6 days, 9 D: 9 days, 12 D: 12 days.
Table
Table 10. Specific combining ability effects of the crosses for 1000 grain weight, grain yield/plant and grain quality traits.
Table 10. Specific combining ability effects of the crosses for 1000 grain weight, grain yield/plant and grain quality traits.
Traits Tester1000 Grain Weight (g)Grain Yield/Plant (g)Hulling (%)Milling (%)Head Rice (%)
6 D9 D12 D6 D9 D12 D6 D9 D12 D6 D9 D12 D6 D9 D12 D
L1 × T1−0.54 **−0.24−0.32 *−3.88 **−3.24 *−2.60 *1.57 **1.62 **1.39 **1.56 **1.30 **1.77 **0.700.130.38
L2 × T10.54 **0.240.32 *3.88 **3.24 *2.60 *−1.57 **−1.62 **−1.39 **−1.56 **−1.30 **−1.77 **−0.70−0.13−0.38
L1 × T20.73 **0.97 **0.83 **7.65 **3.68 **−7.10 **0.500.480.45−0.45−0.45−0.011.83 **2.91 **8.34 **
L2 × T2−0.73 **−0.97 **−0.83 **−7.65 **−3.68 **7.10 **−0.50−0.48−0.450.450.450.01−1.83 **−2.91 **−8.34 **
L1 × T30.180.53 **−0.037.51 **5.93 **−1.83−0.86 **−0.62 *0.62 *1.09 **1.47 **0.72 **6.27 **6.37 **6.51 **
L2 × T3−0.18−0.53 **0.03−7.51 **−5.93 **1.830.86 **0.62 *−0.62 *−1.09 **−1.47 **−0.72 **−6.27 **−6.37 **−6.51 **
L1 × T40.250.49 **0.27−0.042.180.53−0.52−0.64 *−0.58 *−1.09 **−1.13 **−0.15−4.32 **−4.61 **−3.70 **
L2 × T4−0.25−0.49 **−0.270.04−2.18−0.530.520.64 *0.58 *1.09 **1.13 **0.154.32 **4.61 **3.70 **
L1 × T5−0.56 **−0.49 **−0.38 *18.80 **13.75 **9.65 **−0.42−0.37−0.250.040.190.64 *−3.20 **−3.64 **−1.93 *
L2 × T50.56 **0.49 **0.38 *−18.80 **−13.75 **−9.65 **0.420.370.25−0.04−0.19−0.64 *3.20 **3.64 **1.93 *
L1 × T6−0.24−1.66 **−2.51 **−13.68 **−11.33 **1.27−0.53−0.71 *−0.65 *−0.26−0.330.13−0.26−0.58−0.79
L2 × T60.241.66 **2.51 **13.68 **11.33 **−1.270.530.71 *0.65 *0.260.33−0.130.260.580.79
L1 × T7−0.38 *−1.06 **−0.0033.10 *−0.934.33 **0.040.100.40−0.52−0.59 *−0.13−7.03 **−7.38 **0.17
L2 × T70.38 *1.06 **0.003−3.10 *0.93−4.33 **−0.04−0.10−0.400.520.59 *0.137.03 **7.38 **−0.17
L1 × T8−0.39 *−0.98 **−0.07−3.21 *−0.26−1.650.370.430.23−1.18 **−1.06 **−0.58 *6.04 **5.72 **3.98 **
L2 × T80.39 *0.98 **0.073.21 *0.261.65−0.37−0.43−0.231.18 **1.06 **0.58 *−6.04 **−5.72 **−3.98 **
L1 × T90.83 **0.93 **1.04 **−3.98 **−0.932.02 *0.340.76 *−0.75 **1.68 **1.18 **−3.12 **5.89 **5.57 **−9.49 **
L2 × T9−0.83 **−0.93 **−1.04 **3.98 **0.93−2.02 *−0.34−0.76 *0.75 **−1.68 **−1.18 **3.12 **−5.89 **−5.57 **9.49 **
L1 × T100.49 **0.73 **0.63 **−15.57 **−10.61 **−6.48 **−0.66 *−0.74 *−0.68 *1.09 **1.46 **1.85 **−3.62 **−3.77 **−2.75 **
L2 × T10−0.49 **−0.73 **−0.63 **15.57 **10.61 **6.48 **0.66 *0.74 *0.68 *−1.09 **−1.47 **−1.85 **3.62 **3.77 **2.75 **
L1 × T11−0.48 **−0.19−0.27−1.13−2.55 *−0.390.270.310.38−0.26−0.290.210.87 *0.560.76
L2 × T110.48 **0.190.271.132.55 *0.39−0.27−0.31−0.380.260.28−0.21−0.87 *−0.56−0.76
L1 × T120.110.96 **0.83 **4.43 **4.31 **2.27 *−0.09−0.64 *−0.58 *−1.71 **−1.77 **−1.31 **−3.17 **−1.28−1.47
L2 × T12 ‡ −0.11−0.96 **−0.83 **−4.43 **−4.31 **−2.27 *0.090.64 *0.58 *1.71 **1.76 **1.31 **3.17 **1.281.47
L.S.D. 5%0.30.30.32.72.52.00.60.60.50.60.50.50.81.81.5
L.S.D. 1%0.50.50.43.93.52.80.80.80.70.80.70.71.12.62.1
L.S.D.: least significant difference; **: highly significant at 1%; *: significant at 5%; ‡: control hybrid; 6 D: 6 days, 9 D: 9 days, 12 D: 12 days.
Table
Table 11. Percent contribution of different components (lines, testers, and lines × testers) towards the crosses’ sum of squares for various traits in rice under three irrigation regimes (6, 9, and 12 days).
Table 11. Percent contribution of different components (lines, testers, and lines × testers) towards the crosses’ sum of squares for various traits in rice under three irrigation regimes (6, 9, and 12 days).
CharactersContribution of LineContribution of Tester Contribution of Line × Tester
6 D9 D12 D6 D9 D12 D6 D9 D12 D
Days to 50% heading4.875.402.4791.5891.0395.113.563.582.42
Plant height (cm)23.7647.3327.2365.5236.2965.9210.7316.386.86
No. of panicles/plant0.380.982.7528.7123.4736.0770.9175.5561.18
Panicle length (cm)6.105.420.2285.3984.8894.368.519.705.42
No. of spikelets/ panicle31.9634.1827.6541.2237.7551.5426.8228.0620.81
No. of filled grains/panicle24.7322.7513.6350.0051.0863.1625.2726.1623.21
Panicle weight (g)6.636.5110.1662.0257.3360.2131.3536.1629.63
Spikelet fertility (%)0.821.827.9278.9174.7562.1920.2823.4329.88
1000 grain weight (g)23.192.984.4359.4160.6063.0517.4136.4132.52
Grain yield/plant (g)0.230.010.2541.7947.5672.0857.9852.4327.67
Hulling (%)1.620.580.0155.5740.1371.0242.8159.2928.97
Milling (%)50.0746.7626.7630.1635.9647.0219.7617.2726.22
Head rice (%)29.7532.4624.0939.2738.1150.6830.9829.4325.23
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Awad-Allah, M.M.A.; Attia, K.A.; Omar, A.A.; Mohamed, A.H.; Habiba, R.M.; Alzuaibr, F.M.; Alshehri, M.A.; Alqurashi, M.; Aloufi, S.; Dessoky, E.S.; et al. Combining Ability and Gene Action Controlling Agronomic Traits for Cytoplasmic Male Sterile Line, Restorer Lines, and New Hybrids for Developing of New Drought-Tolerant Rice Hybrids. Genes 2022, 13, 906. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes13050906

AMA Style

Awad-Allah MMA, Attia KA, Omar AA, Mohamed AH, Habiba RM, Alzuaibr FM, Alshehri MA, Alqurashi M, Aloufi S, Dessoky ES, et al. Combining Ability and Gene Action Controlling Agronomic Traits for Cytoplasmic Male Sterile Line, Restorer Lines, and New Hybrids for Developing of New Drought-Tolerant Rice Hybrids. Genes. 2022; 13(5):906. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes13050906

Chicago/Turabian Style

Awad-Allah, Mamdouh M. A., Kotb A. Attia, Ahmad Alsayed Omar, Azza H. Mohamed, Rehab M. Habiba, Fahad Mohammed Alzuaibr, Mohammed Ali Alshehri, Mohammed Alqurashi, Salman Aloufi, Eldessoky S. Dessoky, and et al. 2022. "Combining Ability and Gene Action Controlling Agronomic Traits for Cytoplasmic Male Sterile Line, Restorer Lines, and New Hybrids for Developing of New Drought-Tolerant Rice Hybrids" Genes 13, no. 5: 906. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes13050906

APA Style

Awad-Allah, M. M. A., Attia, K. A., Omar, A. A., Mohamed, A. H., Habiba, R. M., Alzuaibr, F. M., Alshehri, M. A., Alqurashi, M., Aloufi, S., Dessoky, E. S., & Abdein, M. A. (2022). Combining Ability and Gene Action Controlling Agronomic Traits for Cytoplasmic Male Sterile Line, Restorer Lines, and New Hybrids for Developing of New Drought-Tolerant Rice Hybrids. Genes, 13(5), 906. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes13050906

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