239 1. Introduction Cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.), a member of the Cu- curbitaceae family, is grown as a summer and rainy season crop in the low and mid hills of the northwestern Himalaya from April to August and fruits are available from June to October to the plains of northern India. The crop raised in the hills, being of high quality and off-season, brings good returns to the growers. F 1 hybrids in cucumber, as in many vegetable crops, have several well known advantages over open-pollinated varieties (Dogra and Kanwar, 2011) and hence provide a scope for the breeder to find more appropriate combina- tions to develop superior hybrids. F 1 hybrids are early, vigorous, high yielding, tolerant to diseases and insect- pests and more efficient in the use of water and fertilizers. Currently, farmers are purchasing hybrid seeds from pri- vate firms who charge exorbitant prices for seed. To tide over the situation, there is a need to develop F 1 hybrids and make their seed available to farmers at a reasonable price. For the development of superior hybrids, estimates of general combining ability of parents and specific com- bining ability of the crosses help to properly select parents for hybridization. Moreover, use of gynoecious lines for developing cucumber hybrids makes the production of F 1 seed more cost effective. Furthermore, there is urgent need to develop stable hybrids adapted to a wide range of cli- matic conditions. 2. Materials and Methods The present investigations were carried out at two lo- cations: Experimental Farm Nauni (L1) and Experimental Farm Chambaghat (L2) of the Department of Vegetable Crops, Dr Y S Parmar University of Horticulture and For- estry, Solan (Himachal Pradesh), India, which are 1276 m a.m.s.l. and 1300 m a.m.s.l., respectively. Both locations fall in the mid-hill sub-temperate zone of the state of Him- achal Pradesh; Nauni lies at latitude and longitude of 300 52’N and 77° 11’ and Chambaghat, 30° 55’ N and 77° 06’. All the parents except two gynoecious lines were of mon- oecious type. Crosses among eight parents were attempted in a half-diallel fashion. The material comprising eight parents, 28 F 1 s and one check (Pusa Sanyog) was sown in Randomized Block Design with three replications. Spac- ing was 1.25x1.00 m. Data were recorded on randomly selected plants for yield and horticultural characters at both the locations. Griffing’s (1956) method II model I was used to derive general and specific combining ability estimates. The analysis of variance for combining ability was based on following mathematical model: P ijk = m + g ii + g jj + s ij + b k + e ijk Selecting parents for developing superior hybrids in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) B.S. Dogra* , M.S.Kanwar** * Regional Horticultural and Forestry Research Station, Dr Y S Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Bhota-176041, Hamirpur (HP), India. ** High Mountain Arid Agriculture Research Institute (SKUAST-K), Leh, 194101 Jammu and Kashmir, India. Key words: Cucumber, Cucumis sativus, gca, hybrids, sca. Abstract: Estimates of general combining ability of parents and specific combining ability of the crosses help to select desidered parents for hybridization and development of superior hybrids. Crosses among eight parents were attempted in a half-diallel fashion. The material comprising eight parents, 28 F1s and one check (Pusa Sanyog) was sown at two locations in Randomized Block Design with three replications. The highest estimates of general combining ability (gca) were exhibited by G2 and Gyn1 for most of the characters at both the locations. In general, there was close agreement between gca effects and per se performance, but in some cases it did not hold good, which may be due to a higher degree of gene action involved. The superior cross combinations which recorded high specific combining ability (sca) estimates and per se performance for yield and number of fruits were K-90 x G2 and K-90 x Gyn1 and hence may be exploited for the development of F1 hybrid (s) after testing their performance at multi-locations for two to three years. Adv. Hort. Sci., 2011 25(4): 239-244 Received for publication 1 June 2011 Accepted for publication 21 October 2011 240 where, P ijk = phenotypes of the hybrids between ith and jth par- ents in kth plots m = population mean g ii = GCA effects of ith parent g jj = GCA effects of jth parent s ij = SCA of the crosses between ith and jth parents b k = block effects e ijk = environmental effect associated with ijkth obser- vation 3. Results and Discussion Analysis of variance (Table 1) for combining ability revealed that the importance of gca (σ2g) was more than sca (σ2s), indicating the preponderance of additive gene action for days to first female flower appearance (DFF- FA) at location 1 and days to marketable maturity (DMM) at both locations. However, in all the other traits, the sca component was higher in magnitude than gca’s, indicating the preponderance of non-additive gene effects. However, mean sum of squares for gca and sca were highly signifi- cant for all the characters except TSS, suggesting the im- portance of both additive and non-additive genetic vari- ance in agreement with the findings of Om et al. (1978). Similar trends at both the locations proved that the conclu- sions on gene actions are authentic. The parents G 2 , Gyn 1 and Poinsette had negative esti- mates for DFFFA and node at which first female flower appears (NFFF) at both the locations (Table 2) showing earliness in fruit bearing and were good general combin- ers for these characters. Among F 1 ’s, the sca effects were significantly negative in 12 and 15 crosses, respectively, for these two traits at L1 (Table 3) whereas significantly negative in 15 crosses for each of these two traits at L2 (Table 4). The crosses LC-11 x Gyn 1 (poor x high) and EC 173934 x LC-40 (poor x poor), respectively, had the highest sca effect at L1 and the crosses LC-11 x LC-40 (poor x poor) and EC 173934 x LC-40 (poor x poor), re- spectively, had the highest sca effects at L2 for these traits. The parents G 2 and Gyn 1 (L1) and G 2 , Gyn 1 and Poinsette (L2) with significantly high gca estimates (with negative value) were good general combiners for DMM. Crosses LC-11 x Gyn 1, EC 173934 x LC-40, K-90 x G 2 and K-90 x EC 173934 had high sca estimates at both the locations for DMM. El-Shawaf and Baker (1978), Om et al. (1978), and Wang and Wang (1980) also reported greater additive ge- netic variance for DMM. The parents G 2 and Gyn 1 may be used in the hybridisation programme for developing early hybrids adapted to a wide range of climate. LC-11 x Gyn 1 and EC 173934 x LC-40 may be exploited as early hybrids after further multi-locational testing. These crosses may also be exploited to produce transgressive segregants in advanced generations. With regard to fruit length, the parents Gyn 1, LC-11 and K-90 were good general combiners as is evident from their high gca estimates at both locations. Fourteen crosses ex- hibited significant sca effects. The sca effects were high in crosses Poinsette x LC-40 and G 2 x Poinstte involv- ing poor x poor general combiners. K-90, K-75 and EC 173934 had the highest gca with respect to fruit width and hence were good general combiners. The sca effect was maximum in G 2 x Gyn 1 involving poor x poor gen- eral combining parental lines (at L1) and in G 2 x K-75 in- volving poor x high general combining parental lines (at L2). In India, slicing cucumbers are preferred, therefore lengthy fruits are desirable. Kupper and Staub (1988) and Hormuzdi and More (1989) reported contrasting results for fruit length and width due to different experimental material and environment. Table 1 - Analysis of variance for combining ability for different characters in F 1 cucumber Source of variation Df Character Days to first female flower appearance Node of first female flower Days to marketable maturity Fruit length Fruit width TSS Flesh to seed cavity ratio Fruit weight No. of fruits per plant Yield per plant Internodal length Location 1 - Nauni Gca 7 678.818 * 27.997 * 705.436 * 6.425 * 1.087 * 0.005 0.001 * 3787.657 * 9.898 * 0.735 * 9.512 * Sca 28 42.264 * 3.049 * 45.029 * 3.237 * 0.243 * 0.021 0.0015 * 693.149 * 1.159 * 0.193 * 2.183 * Error 70 0.557 0.228 0.562 0.004 0.002 0.0013 0.00004 62.357 0.112 0.0013 0.272 σ2g 67.826 2.777 70.487 0.642 0.108 0.0004 0.0001 372.53 0.979 0.073 0.924 σ2s 41.707 2.821 44.467 3.0233 0.240 0.020 0.002 630.79 1.047 0.191 1.911 σ2g/ σ2s 1.626 0.984 1.585 0.199 0.451 0.021 0.068 0.591 0.934 0.383 0.483 Location 2 - Chambaghat Gca 7 390.457 * 35.726 * 577.811 * 7.820 * 0.993 * 0.012 * 0.0016 * 3515.486 * 14.247 * 0.786 * 7.800 * Sca 28 67.477 * 4.551 * 37.300 * 3.895 * 0.268 * 0.028 * 0.0009 * 612.551 * 1.582 * 0.181 * 1.510 * Error 70 0.431 0.205 0.442 0.089 0.023 0.006 0.000035 49.232 0.148 0.0096 0.358 σ2g 39.003 3.552 57.737 0.773 0.097 0.0006 0.000159 346.630 1.409 0.078 0.744 σ2s 67.046 4.346 36.859 3.806 0.245 0.022 0.00088 563.320 1.434 0.171 1.153 σ2g/ σ2s 0.582 0.817 1.566 0.203 0.395 0.029 0.081 0.615 0.983 0.452 0.646 * Significant at 5% level of significance. 241 The best general combiners for TSS at both locations in order of merit were EC 173934 and LC-40. Among 28 specific combinations, 16 (at L1) and 14 (at L2) crosses exhibited positive sca effects being maximum in K-90 x Poinsette and Poinsette x K-75 at L1 and LC-40 x Gyn 1 , K-90 x Poinsette and K-75 x LC-40 at L2. For flesh to seed cavity ratio (FSR), the best general combiners were Poinsette, EC 173934 and Gyn 1 , irrespective of locations. Cross combination K-90 x K-75 at L1 and Poinsette x EC 173934 at L2 had maximum sca among seven significant and positive specific combinations. In contradiction to the present results, importance of additive gene action for FSR has been reported (Dogra, 1995). The parents LC-11, K-90 and K-75 depicted high per se performance with respect to fruit weight at both loca- tions as is evident from their high gca effect (Table 2). These parents had maximum concentration of favourable genes for increasing fruit weight. Eleven (at L1) and 12 (at L2) specific cross combinations had significantly posi- tive sca effects (Tables 3 and 4), being maximum in K-90 x LC-11 (high x high) and K-90 x EC 173934 (high x poor). Non-additive gene action for fruit weight was also obtained by Ghaderi and Lower (1979) in consonance with the present findings. However, Gyn 1 and G 2 were identi- fied as good general combiners for number of fruits per plant. The top specific combinations in order of merit were K-90 x G 2 , K-90 x Gyn 1 and K-75 x Gyn 1 involving me- dium high, medium x high and poor x high general com- biners, respectively. The situation holds good for both the locations with respect to number of fruits. Importance of non additive gene action for number of fruits per plant was also reported (Om et al., 1978; Ghaderi and Lower, 1979; Dogra, 1995). However, the present results with regard to fruit weight and number of fruits are in disagreement with El Hafeez et al. (1997). This may be due to differences in the parental material used for making diallel crosses. For yield per plant, K-90 was the best general combiner in addition to Gyn 1 and G 2 irrespective of location (Table 2). The sca effects (Tables 3 and 4) were high for K-90 x G 2 (high x high), K-90 x Gyn 1 (high x high) and LC-11 x Gyn 1 (poor x high). The present results on yield per plant were similar to earlier findings of Om et al. (1978), Gha- deri and Lower (1979), Wang and Wang (1980) and Doli- gibh and Sidorova (1983) but in contradiction to the work of Gu et al. (2004). Parents such as G 2 , Gyn 1 and LC-40 had negative gca effects and were considered good general combiners for internodal length. Nine (at L1) and 10 (at L2) specific combinations had significant negative values with the maximum in K-90 x Poinsette and Poinsette x EC 173934, poor x poor general combiners at each location. As is evident from the data in Tables 2, 3 and 4, envi- ronmental effect was observed as non-significant on geno- Table 2 - Estimates of general combining ability of parents for different characters in cucumber Source of variation Character Days to first female flower appearance Node of first female flower Days to market-able maturity Fruit length Fruit width TSS Flesh to seed cavity ratio Fruit weight No. of fruits per plant Yield per plant Internodal length Location 1 K-90 0.000 0.367* -0.550* 0.361* 0.364* -0.016* -0.0002 20.083* 0.017 0.276* 0.021 G2 -12.133* -2.567* -12.217* -1.404* -0.041* 0.004 0.004* -25.250* 1.317* 0.302* -1.856* Poinsette -2.433* -0.767* -2.0183* -0.105 -0.531* -0.031 0.014* -4.917* -0.217* -0.055* 1.048* EC173934 8.167* 1.633* 8.517* -0.390* 0.191* 0.037* 0.011* 7.417* -0.617* -0.346* 0.144 K-75 0.733* 0.733* 1.017* -0.050* 0.320* -0.004 0.017* 10.083* -0.017 0.024* 1.084* LC-11 6.600* 0.633* 6.583* 0.388* 0.136* -0.022 0.007* 32.750* -0.783* -0.089* 0.604* LC-40 9.800* 2.067* 9.950* -0.225* -0.008* 0.029* 0.005* -8.417* -1.283* -0.379* -0.593* Gyn1 -10.733* -2.100* -11.117* 1.425* -0.433* 0.002 0.008* -16.917* 1.583* 0.268* -0.453 SE (gi) 0.221 0.141 0.222 0.019 0.013 0.011 0.0019 2.336 0.099 0.011 0.154 CD0.05 (gi) 0.441 0.281 0.443 0.037 0.026 0.021 0.0038 4.658 0.197 0.022 0.307 Location 2 K-90 0.075 0.258* -0.267* 0.208* 0.269* -0.021 -0.013* 20.492* 0.508* 0.301* 0.116 G2 -10.092* -2.908* -11.600* -1.355* 0.016 -0.015 -0.016* -23.341* 1.842* 0.285* -1.828* Poinsette -1.158* -0.375* -1.133* -0.285* -0.574* -0.008 0.018* -7.141* -0.325* -0.053* 0.693* EC173934 7.642* 1.192* 7.867* -0.592* 0.196* 0.065* 0.014* -5.342* -0.858* -0.384* 0.489* K-75 2.908* 0.792* 1.100* -0.025 0.309* -0.013 -0.010* 8.825* -0.258* 0.058* 0.869* LC-11 2.875* 1.325* 6.300* 0.495* 0.083* -0.028* -0.0001 30.825* -1.092* -0.125* 0.513 LC-40 5.675* 2.358* 7.900* -0.148* 0.083* 0.045* -0.0007 -5.342* -1.358* -0.363* -0.364* Gyn1 -7.925* -2.642* -10.167* 1.702* -0.381* -0.026* 0.009* -18.375* 1.542* 0.279* -0.488* SE (gi) 0.194 0.134 0.197 0.088 0.044 0.023 0.0018 2.076 0.114 0.029 0.177 CD0.05 (gi) 0.387 0.267 0.393 0.175 0.088 0.046 0.0036 4.139 0.227 0.058 0.353 * Significant at 5% level of significance. 242 T ab le 3 - E st im at es o f sp ec if ic c om bi ni ng a bi li ty o f F 1 fo r di ff er en t ch ar ac te rs i n cu cu m be r at N au ni ( L 1) C ro ss es C ha ra ct er s D ay s to fi rs t fe m al e flo w er ap pe ar an ce N od e of fi rs t fe m al e flo w er D ay s to m ar ke ta - bl e m at ur ity Fr ui t l en gt h Fr ui t w id th T SS Fl es h to s ee d ca vi ty ra tio Fr ui t w ei gh t N o. o f f ru its pe r p la nt Y ie ld p er pl an t In te r- no da l le ng th K -9 0x G 2 -7 .4 22 * -1 .0 59 * -7 .2 52 * -2 .4 81 * -0 .4 11 * -0 .0 82 * 0. 12 2* -1 3. 25 9* 2. 68 5* 1. 02 3* -0 .6 27 * K -9 0x P oi ns et te -4 .7 89 * -0 .5 26 * -4 .6 18 * -0 .4 40 * 0. 08 6* 0. 27 5* -0 .0 46 * -3 8. 59 3* 0. 84 8* -0 .3 24 * -2 .5 30 * K -9 0x E C 17 39 34 -7 .0 56 * -1 .2 59 * -7 .6 12 * -0 .4 45 * -0 .5 73 * -0 .0 73 * -0 .0 40 * 40 .5 74 * -0 .7 52 * -0 .0 59 * -1 .8 94 * K -9 0x K -7 5 10 .3 78 * 1. 97 4* 9. 48 4* 1. 38 2* 0. 45 1* 0. 01 1 0. 01 2* -3 5. 25 9* -0 .3 52 * -0 .5 43 * 0. 46 6 K -9 0x L C -1 1 9. 17 8* -0 .2 59 9. 94 8* -0 .4 06 * 0. 51 6* -0 .0 61 * -0 .0 31 * 55 .4 07 * -0 .2 52 -0 .3 09 * 2. 24 6* K -9 0x L C -4 0 -5 .3 56 * -1 .6 93 * -5 .0 85 * 1. 32 4* -0 .7 94 * 0. 00 6 0. 00 6* -1 .7 59 -0 .0 85 -0 .3 03 * 2. 04 3 K -9 0x G yn 1 -4 .4 89 * -0 .5 26 * -5 .3 52 * -1 .3 43 * -0 .1 82 * -0 .0 51 * -0 .0 13 * -2 3. 25 9* 2. 38 2* 0. 50 9* -0 .0 30 G 2 xP oi ns et te 2. 01 1* 1. 07 4* 3. 71 5* 2. 33 4* -0 .3 93 * 0. 00 2* -0 .0 45 * 0. 07 4 -0 .1 19 -0 .3 16 * 0. 68 0* G 2 x E C 17 39 34 3. 41 1* 0. 00 7 3. 34 8* 1. 81 9* 0. 48 2* -0 .0 32 -0 .0 29 -4 .0 93 -1 .0 52 * -0 .3 98 * 0. 88 3* G 2x K -7 5 0. 17 8 -1 .0 93 * 0. 51 5 2. 11 3* 0. 30 6* 0. 11 2* -0 .0 09 * 21 .0 74 * 1. 34 8* 0. 49 4* 1. 14 3* G 2 x L C -1 1 -3 .3 56 * 0. 67 4* -4 .0 52 * -1 .1 42 * -0 .3 67 * 0. 04 3 -0 .0 14 * 24 .0 74 * 0. 11 5 0. 26 8* -0 .0 44 G 2 x L C -4 0 9. 44 4* 0. 57 4* 9. 24 8* 0. 63 8* -0 .2 40 * 0. 16 0* 0. 00 3 -2 6. 42 6* -1 .3 85 * -0 .6 59 * 0. 45 3 G 2 x G yn 1 -0 .3 56 * 0. 74 1* 0. 98 2* 1. 42 1* 0. 75 6* 0. 09 3* -0 .0 23 * -1 4. 59 3* 0. 08 2 -0 .1 40 * 1. 01 3* Po in se tte x E C 17 39 34 1. 04 4* -1 .1 26 * 1. 31 5* 2. 07 0* 0. 19 2* 0. 08 5* 0. 08 0* 5. 57 4 0. 48 2* 0. 06 5* -2 .3 87 * Po in se tte x K -7 5 -0 .5 22 * 0. 10 7 -1 .1 85 * 2. 00 2* 0. 34 3* 0. 22 3* -0 .0 39 * 16 .4 07 * -0 .1 18 0. 20 1* 2. 00 6* Po in se tte x L C -1 1 -5 .0 56 * -1 .1 26 * -5 .4 18 * -0 .3 25 * -0 .5 27 * -0 .0 23 * -0 .0 35 * 10 .4 07 * 0. 64 8* 0. 47 8* 1. 41 9* Po in se tte x L C -4 0 -4 .9 22 * -1 .2 26 * -5 .4 52 * 2. 62 2* 0. 65 4* -0 .2 56 * 0. 03 2* -2 8. 42 6* 0. 48 1* 0. 08 8* -1 .5 17 * Po in se tte x G yn 1 14 .9 44 * 0. 94 1* 15 .6 15 * -1 .9 95 * 0. 12 6* 0. 12 0* 0. 03 2* 18 .4 07 * -0 .3 85 * 0. 26 0* 1. 10 9* E C 17 39 34 x K -7 5 -1 .4 56 * 1. 04 1* -2 .8 85 * 0. 03 3 -0 .2 76 * -0 .2 05 * 0. 00 06 -7 .7 59 * -0 .7 18 * -0 .3 14 * 1. 00 9* E C 17 39 34 x L C -1 1 -0 .3 22 * -2 .5 26 * -0 .7 85 * 1. 16 1 0. 13 9* -0 .0 74 * 0. 04 4* 9. 57 4* 0. 04 8 0. 18 9* 0. 48 9* E C 17 39 34 x L C -4 0 -9 .1 89 * -3 .2 93 * -8 .8 18 * 1. 17 4* -0 .5 25 * -0 .1 07 * -0 .0 02 -5 .9 26 1. 54 8* 0. 44 6* 0. 35 3 E C 17 39 34 x G yn 1 9. 67 8* 3. 54 1* 8. 91 5* -0 .0 92 * -0 .0 59 * 0. 03 6* -0 .0 18 * -1 4. 09 3* -1 .9 85 * -0 .6 02 * 0. 17 9 K -7 5x L C -1 1 3. 77 8* 0. 37 4 3. 71 5* 1. 23 8* 0. 43 6* 0. 02 0 -0 .0 14 -3 6. 25 9* 0. 44 8* -0 .2 58 * -2 .0 84 * K -7 5x L C -4 0 4. 24 4* -2 .0 59 * 4. 68 2* 0. 90 1* -0 .6 77 * 0. 13 4* -0 .0 13 * -0 .0 93 -0 .0 52 -0 .0 28 * -1 .9 54 * K -7 5x G yn 1 -6 .5 56 * -0 .8 93 * -6 .5 85 * -1 .1 16 -0 .3 79 * -0 .2 13 * -0 .0 20 * 13 .4 07 * 1. 41 5* 0. 53 8* 0. 00 6 L C -1 1x L C -4 0 4. 04 4* 4. 04 1* 4. 11 5* 0. 49 6* -0 .5 93 * -0 .0 05 -0 .0 03 22 .2 41 * -0 .2 85 0. 04 9* 1. 25 9* L C -1 1x G yn 1 -9 .4 22 * -1 .4 59 * -9 .8 18 * -0 .4 54 * -0 .1 58 * 0. 12 8* -0 .0 30 * 25 .7 41 * 0. 18 1 0. 51 8* -0 .6 14 * L C -4 0x G yn 1 3. 37 8* -0 .2 26 2. 48 2* -1 .7 07 * 0. 17 3* 0. 21 1 -0 .0 19 * -1 6. 42 6* -1 .3 18 * -0 .3 52 * -2 .0 84 * SE (i j) ± 0. 67 6 0. 43 3 0. 68 0 0. 05 8 0. 04 4 0. 03 2 0. 00 57 7. 16 0 0. 30 3 0. 03 3 0. 47 2 C D 0. 05 1. 99 4 0. 88 3 1. 35 6 0. 11 6 0. 08 8 0. 06 4 0. 01 1 14 .2 80 06 04 0. 06 6 0. 94 1 *S ig ni fi ca nt a t 5% l ev el o f si gn if ic an ce . 243 T ab le 4 - E st im at es o f sp ec if ic c om bi ni ng a bi li ty o f F 1 fo r di ff er en t ch ar ac te rs i n cu cu m be r at C ha m ba gh at ( L 2) C ro ss es C ha ra ct er s D ay s to fi rs t fe m al e flo w er ap pe ar an ce N od e of fi rs t fe m al e flo w er D ay s to m ar ke ta bl e m at ur ity Fr ui t l en gt h Fr ui t w id th T SS Fl es h to s ee d ca vi ty ra tio Fr ui t w ei gh t N o. o f f ru its pe r p la nt Y ie ld p er p la nt In te r- no da l le ng th K -9 0x G 2 -7 .8 26 * -0 .9 15 * -7 .2 07 * -2 .2 55 * -0 .7 45 * -0 .0 95 * 0. 00 9* -8 .6 41 * 3. 69 6* 1. 05 8* -1 .0 97 * K -9 0x P oi ns et te -3 .7 59 * 0. 88 5* -3 .6 74 * -0 .0 25 0. 01 2 0. 26 5* -0 .3 90 * -2 8. 17 4* -0 .1 37 -0 .3 61 * -0 .9 17 * K -9 0x E C 17 39 34 -6 .8 93 * -2 .0 15 * -6 .6 74 * -0 .1 52 * -0 .6 25 * -0 .1 42 * -0 .0 28 * 43 .3 59 * -1 .2 70 * -0 .1 40 * -1 .5 80 * K -9 0x K -7 5 9. 17 4* 1. 71 9* 11 .4 26 * 1. 08 1 0. 29 5* 0. 07 0 0. 04 2* -2 7. 47 4* -0 .5 37 * -0 .5 65 * 1. 14 0* K -9 0x L C -1 1 11 .2 07 * -0 .1 48 7. 89 3* -0 .1 72 0. 08 8 -0 .0 49 -0 .0 14 * 33 .8 59 * -0 .3 70 * -0 .2 52 * 2. 26 3* K -9 0x L C -4 0 -1 .5 93 * -1 .5 15 * -3 .3 74 * 1. 70 5* -0 .4 12 * -0 .0 22 -0 .0 04 -1 .6 41 -0 .4 37 * -0 .2 88 * -0 .1 93 K -9 0x G yn 1 -7 .6 59 * -1 .1 82 * -5 .9 74 * -1 .5 78 * -0 .0 82 * -0 .0 50 -0 .0 07 * -1 9. 67 4* 1. 66 3* 0. 43 1* -0 .7 37 * G 2 xP oi ns et te 3. 74 1* 1. 38 5* 4. 65 9* 2. 83 8* -0 .5 02 * -0 .0 09 -0 .0 36 * -1 7. 67 4* -0 .4 70 * -0 .2 55 * 0. 02 7 G 2 x E C 17 39 34 0. 60 7* 0. 81 9* 2. 32 6* 2. 84 5* 0. 42 8* 0. 01 8 -0 .0 22 * -1 4. 47 4* -1 .9 37 * -0 .4 34 * 1. 36 3* G 2x K -7 5 -5 .6 59 * -1 .4 48 * -2 .9 07 * 2. 27 8* 0. 78 2* 0. 19 6* -0 .0 01 23 .0 26 * 0. 79 6* 0. 33 4* -0 .5 83 * G 2 x L C -1 1 -1 .2 93 * 0. 35 2 -3 .7 74 * -1 .2 75 * -0 .3 92 * 0. 04 5 -0 .0 08 * 24 .3 59 * -0 .7 04 * 0. 18 4* -0 .3 27 G 2 x L C -4 0 18 .5 74 * 1. 31 9* 7. 29 3* 0. 70 2* 0. 00 8 -0 .0 95 * 0. 02 3* -1 2. 80 7* -1 .4 37 * -0 .5 15 * 0. 71 7* G 2 x G yn 1 -0 .8 26 * 0. 65 2* 2. 02 6* 1. 01 8* 0. 73 8* 0. 14 3* -0 .0 14 * -7 .5 07 * -0 .6 70 * -0 .0 87 0. 80 7* Po in se tte x E C 17 39 34 2. 67 4* -1 .0 48 * 2. 85 9* 0. 90 8* 0. 31 8* 0. 14 5* 0. 07 7* 14 .3 26 * 0. 89 6* 0. 14 7* -1 .9 57 * Po in se tte x K -7 5 -3 .5 93 * -0 .3 15 -1 .3 74 * -1 .7 92 * 0. 07 2 0. 19 0* -0 .0 42 * 30 .1 59 * 0. 29 6 0. 25 5* 1. 33 0* Po in se tte x L C -1 1 -2 .8 93 * 0. 48 5* -6 .5 74 * -0 .4 78 * -0 .3 02 * 0. 00 5 -0 .0 12 * 11 .4 93 * 0. 79 6* 0. 49 2* 1. 58 7* Po in se tte x L C -4 0 -0 .6 93 * -1 .5 48 * -2 .8 41 * 2. 66 5* 1. 06 5* -0 .1 70 * 0. 02 9* -2 9. 00 7* 0. 72 9* 0. 06 6 -1 .9 03 * Po in se tte x G yn 1 11 .5 74 * 1. 11 8* 13 .8 93 * -2 .2 52 * -0 .3 72 * 0. 06 9 0. 01 5* 9. 95 9* -0 .1 70 0. 34 4* 0. 75 3* E C 17 39 34 x K -7 5 -1 .7 26 * 3. 45 2* -0 .0 41 -0 .0 85 -0 .1 65 * -0 .2 50 * 0. 00 2 -3 .3 07 -0 .1 70 -0 .2 47 * -0 .2 00 E C 17 39 34 x L C -1 1 4. 30 7* -2 .0 82 0. 75 9* 1. 09 5* 0. 19 5* -0 .0 69 0. 04 2* 19 .6 93 * 0. 33 0* 0. 23 6* -0 .3 43 E C 17 39 34 x L C -4 0 -6 .1 59 * -4 .1 15 * -8 .5 07 * 1. 10 5* -0 .2 05 * -0 .1 75 * -0 .0 04 -1 9. 14 1* 1. 26 3* 0. 34 0* 1. 60 0* E C 17 39 34 x G yn 1 2. 77 4* 0. 21 9 4. 89 3* -0 .4 12 * -0 .1 09 * -0 .0 70 * -0 .0 14 * -1 8. 84 1* -1 .9 70 * -0 .6 18 * 1. 42 3* K -7 5x L C -1 1 5. 70 7* -1 .0 15 * 4. 19 3* 1. 06 2* 0. 58 2* -0 .1 57 * -0 .0 14 * -4 1. 14 1* 0. 39 6* -0 .3 09 * -0 .8 57 * K -7 5x L C -4 0 4. 90 7* -3 .7 15 * 4. 25 9* 0. 93 8* -0 .8 85 * 0. 20 3* -0 .0 17 * -6 .0 41 -0 .0 04 -0 .1 31 * -1 .6 13 * K -7 5x G yn 1 8. 50 7* -1 .0 48 * -5 .6 74 * -1 .5 78 * -0 .2 55 * -0 .2 42 * -0 .0 20 * 10 .3 26 * 1. 42 9* 0. 30 7* 0. 07 7 L C -1 1x L C -4 0 -2 2. 72 6* 3. 08 5* 6. 39 3* 0. 61 8* -0 .8 25 * -0 .0 15 -0 .0 14 * 23 .0 26 * 0. 16 3 0. 02 5* 0. 07 7 L C -1 1x G yn 1 -5 .7 93 * -2 .2 48 * -7 .5 41 * -0 .8 65 * 0. 23 8* 0. 12 3* -0 .0 30 * 28 .3 26 * -0 .4 04 * 0. 57 4* -1 .4 67 * L C -4 0x G yn 1 2. 07 4* 5. 05 2* 1. 85 9* -2 .3 22 * 0. 10 5 0. 31 7* -0 .0 23 * -1 2. 17 4* -1 .1 37 * -0 .3 02 * -1 .3 22 * SE (i j) ± 0. 59 5 0. 41 1 0. 60 3 0. 27 1 0. 13 4 0. 07 0 0. 00 54 6. 36 2 0. 34 9 0. 08 9 0. 54 2 C D 0. 05 1. 18 6 0. 81 9 1. 20 2 0. 54 0 0. 26 7 01 39 0. 01 1 12 .6 85 0. 69 6 0. 17 7 1. 08 1 *S ig ni fi ca nt a t 5% l ev el o f si gn if ic an ce . 244 types and hybrid combinations for most of the characters. The results are similar at both locations with developed hybrid combinations and hence hybrids K-90 x G 2 and K-90 x Gyn 1 can be exploited in similar types of climates. K-90, G 2 and Gyn 1 may be used in hybridisation for developing high yielding hybrids with higher number of fruits per vine, long fruits and high TSS on the basis of results from location 1, whereas G 2 and Gyn 1 are promis- ing for developing high yielding hybrids with higher num- ber of fruits per vine and short inter-nodal length on the basis of results from location 2. It can be concluded that G 2 and Gyn 1 may be used in hybridisation for developing high yielding hybrids with more fruits per vine and wider adaptability. The crosses K-90 x G 2 and K-90 x Gyn 1 can be released as hybrids after further testing. References DOGRA B.S., 1995 - Heterosis and combining ability studies in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) - M.Sc. Thesis, Dr Y S Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Solan, India, pp. 591. DOGRA B.S., KANWAR M.S., 2011 - Exploiting heterosis for yield and horticultural traits in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.). - Indian J. Plant Genet. Resour., 24(3): 332-339. DOLIGIBH S.T., SIDOROVA A.M., 1983 - Combining ability of induced mutants and partially dioecious forms of cucum- ber. - Genetika, 19(8): 1292-1300. EL HAFEEZ A.A., EL SAYED S.F., GHARIB A.A., 1997 - Ge- netic analysis of cucumber yield and its components by dial- lel crossing. - Egyptian J. Hort. Sci., 24(2): 141-159. EL-SHAWAF I.I.S., BAKER L.R., 1978 - Inheritance of yield in parthenocarpic hybrid pickling cucumber (abstract). - Hort. Science, 13(3): 355. GHADERI L.R., LOWER R.L., 1979 - Heterosis and inbreeding depression for yield in populations derived from six crosses of cucumber. - J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci., 104(4): 564-567. GRIFFING J.B., 1956 - Concept of general and specific com- bining ability in relation to diallel crossing system. - Aust. J. Biol. Sci., 9: 463-494. GU X.F., ZHANG S.P., XU C.Q., 2004 - Analysis of combining ability of early yield and total yield character of cucumber cultivated in open field in spring. - China Vegetables, 6: 13- 15. HORMUZDI S.G., MORE T.A., 1989 - Studies on combining ability in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.). - Indian J.Genet., 49(2): 161-165. KUPPER R.S., STAUB J.E., 1988 - Combining ability between lines of Cucumis sativus L. and Cucumis sativus var. hard- wickii (R.) Alef. - Euphytica, 38: 197-210. OM Y.H., CHOI K.S., LEE C.H., CHOI C.I., 1978 - Diallel analysis of several characters in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.). - Korean J. Breeding, 10(1): 44-50. WANG Y.J., WANG Y.S., 1980 - Preliminary analysis of com- bining ability in autumn cucumber. - Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 3: 52-57.