Final SPH -JHS Coverpage 16-2 Jan 2021 single C O N T E N T S JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURAL SCIENCES Volume 16 Issue 2 June 2021 In this Issue i-ii Review Phytoremediation of indoor air pollutants: Harnessing the potential of 131-143 plants beyond aesthetics Shalini Jhanji and U.K.Dhatt Research Articles Response of fruit yield and quality to foliar application of micro-nutrients in 144-151 lemon [Citrus limon (L.) Burm.] cv. Assam lemon Sheikh K.H.A., Singh B., Haokip S.W., Shankar K., Debbarma R. Studies on high density planting and nutrient requirement of banana in 152-163 different states of India Debnath Sanjit Bauri F.K., Swain S., Patel A.N., Patel A.R., Shaikh N.B., Bhalerao V.P., Baruah K., Manju P.R., Suma A., Menon R., Gutam S. and P. Patil Mineral nutrient composition in leaf and root tissues of fifteen polyembryonic 164-176 mango genotypes grown under varying levels of salinity Nimbolkar P.K., Kurian R.M., Varalakshmi L.R., Upreti K.K., Laxman R.H. and D. Kalaivanan Optimization of GA3 concentration for improved bunch and berry quality in 177-184 grape cv. Crimson Seedless (Vitis vinifera L) Satisha J., Kumar Sampath P. and Upreti K.K. RGAP molecular marker for resistance against yellow mosaic disease in 185-192 ridge gourd [Luffa acutangula (L.) Roxb.] Kaur M., Varalakshmi B., Kumar M., Lakshmana Reddy D.C., Mahesha B. and Pitchaimuthu M. Genetic divergence study in bitter gourd (Momordica charantia L.) 193-198 Nithinkumar K.R., Kumar J.S.A., Varalakshmi B, Mushrif S.K., Ramachandra R.K. , Prashanth S.J. Combining ability studies to develop superior hybrids in bell pepper 199-205 (Capsicum annuum var. grossum L.) Varsha V., Smaranika Mishra, Lingaiah H.B., Venugopalan R., Rao K.V. Kattegoudar J. and Madhavi Reddy K. SSR marker development in Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moench 206-214 using transcriptome sequencing and genetic diversity studies Gayathri M., Pitchaimuthu M. and K.V. Ravishankar Generation mean analysis of important yield traits in Bitter gourd 215-221 (Momordica charantia) Swamini Bhoi, Varalakshmi B., Rao E.S., Pitchaimuthu M. and Hima Bindu K. Influence of phenophase based irrigation and fertigation schedule on vegetative 222-233 performance of chrysanthemum (Dendranthema grandiflora Tzelev.) var. Marigold Vijayakumar S., Sujatha A. Nair, Nair A.K., Laxman R.H. and Kalaivanan D. Performance evaluation of double type tuberose IIHR-4 (IC-0633777) for 234-240 flower yield, quality and biotic stress response Bharathi T.U., Meenakshi Srinivas, Umamaheswari R. and Sonavane, P. Anti-fungal activity of Trichoderma atroviride against Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. 241-250 Lycopersici causing wilt disease of tomato Yogalakshmi S., Thiruvudainambi S., Kalpana K., Thamizh Vendan R. and Oviya R. Seed transmission of bean common mosaic virus-blackeye cowpea mosaic strain 251-260 (BCMV-BlCM) threaten cowpea seed health in the Ashanti and Brong-Ahafo regions of Ghana Adams F.K., Kumar P.L., Kwoseh C., Ogunsanya P., Akromah R. and Tetteh R. Effect of container size and types on the root phenotypic characters of Capsicum 261-270 Raviteja M.S.V., Laxman R.H., Rashmi K., Kannan S., Namratha M.R. and Madhavi Reddy K. Physio-morphological and mechanical properties of chillies for 271-279 mechanical harvesting Yella Swami C., Senthil Kumaran G., Naik R.K., Reddy B.S. and Rathina Kumari A.C. Assessment of soil and water quality status of rose growing areas of 280-286 Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh in India Varalakshmi LR., Tejaswini P., Rajendiran S. and K.K. Upreti Qualitative and organoleptic evaluation of immature cashew kernels under storage 287-291 Sharon Jacob and Sobhana A. Physical quality of coffee bean (Coffea arabica L.) as affected by harvesting and 292-300 drying methods Chala T., Lamessa K. and Jalata Z Vegetative vigour, yield and field tolerance to leaf rust in four F1 hybrids of 301-308 coffee (Coffea arabica L.) in India Divya K. Das, Shivanna M.B. and Prakash N.S. Limonene extraction from the zest of Citrus sinensis, Citrus limon, Vitis vinifera 309-314 and evaluation of its antimicrobial activity Wani A.K., Singh R., Mir T.G. and Akhtar N. Event Report 315-318 National Horticultural Fair 2021 - A Success Story Dhananjaya M.V., Upreti K.K. and Dinesh M.R. Subject index 319-321 Author index 322-323 215 J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 16(2) : 215-221, 2021 This is an open access article d istributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommer cial-ShareAl ike 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, d istribution, and reproduction in any med ium, provide d the original author and source are credited. Original Research Paper INTRODUCTION Bitter gourd is an economically important vegetable crop and considered as one of the most nutritious gourds, grown for its fruit and leaves. It is a good source of phytonutrients like carbohydrates, minerals like iron, calcium, phosphorus and vitamin B, vitamin C, and also contains vitamin A (Behera et al., 2010). The primary centre of diversity is India, and China is considered as the secondary centre of diversity. It is grown widely throughout India. The primary breeding goal for bitter gourd is to increase fruit yield and qua lity. T his gynoecious sex for m ha s been commercially exploited worldwide in cucumber for increased number of fruits, earliness, uniformity and mechanical harvesting. It is mostly useful for hybrid development as it avoids manual emasculation and pollination. So simply by isolating from other genotypes and with a desirable parent we can go for hybrid development. Yield is a complicated trait influenced by polygenes with small but cumulative effects. Therefore, detailed understanding of the genetics and inheritance that underpins yield and its component traits is required in order to achieve the actual yield potential by adopting appropriate breeding and selection strategies. Generation mean analysis has proven to be a useful tool for estimating various genetic parameters. Hayman (1960) proposed the concept of generation mean analysis for estimating various genetic components. This method gives data on several genetic parameters as well as epistatic inter actions. It is beneficia l to ha ve a pr ecise understanding of the nature and magnitude of gene action of various characters to maximise the use of genetic potential by choosing of effective breeding methods. Generation mean analysis of important yield traits in bitter gourd (Momordica charantia) Swamini Bhoi1, Varalakshmi B.1, Rao E.S.1, Pitchaimuthu M.1 and Hima Bindu K.2 Division of Vegetable Crops, Division of Flower and Medicinal Crops, ICAR-Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Bengaluru - 560089, Karnataka, India. Corresponding author Email : swaminibhoi29@gmail.com ABSTRACT Generation mean analysis study in bitter gourd was undertaken using six basic generations viz. P1, P2, F1, F2, B1 and B2 population were developed from gynoecious (IIHRBTGy- 491) × monoecious (IIHR Sel -19 -1 and IIHR Sel-78-4) crosses. The gynoecious parent was superior for node for first female flowering, number of fruits and yield/plant whereas the monoecious parents were superior for fruit length, fruit diameter and fruit weight. F1 showed superior performance over mid parent for number of fruits, fruit length, fruit weight and yield per plant. F2 plants were significantly diverse. B1 and B2 population exhibited mean value closer to their recurrent parents. Significance of one or more scaling tests, i.e. A, B, C and D in most of the traits revealed the presence of epistasis in both the crosses except for node bearing 1st male flower. Days to 1st female flower opening, node bearing 1st female flower, fruit diameter and yield showed presence of duplicate epistasis whereas days to 1st male flower opening, number of fruits per plant, fruit length and fruit weight showed complimentary epistasis in IIHRBTGy - 491 × IIHR Sel -19 -1 cross. Node bearing 1st female flower, fruit length, fruit diameter and yield showed presence of duplicate epistasis whereas days to 1st female flower opening, days to 1st male flower opening, number of fruits and fruit weight showed complimentary epistasis in IIHRBTGy - 491× IIHR Sel-78-4 cross. Additive gene action may be predominant for inheritance of node bearing 1st male flower. Key words: Bitter gourd, epistatic interactions. gene action and scaling test. 216 Swamini et al J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 16(2) : 215-221, 2021 MATERIALS AND METHODS The sib-mated seeds of gynoecious bitter gourd germplasm, IIHRBTGy–491 and two monoecious lines IIHR Sel -19 -1 and IIHR Sel-78-4 used as parents to develop, F1, F2 and back cross generations during 2018–2021 at Vegetable Research Block VIII of Division of Vegetable Crops, ICAR–Indian Institute of Hor ticultur a l Resea r ch, Benga lur u. T he IIHRBTGy–491gynoecious plant was maintained by sib matting and through the pollens from silver nitrate 250 ppm induced hermaphrodite flower s in the gynoecious plant. The data was recorded on 10 competitive plants in parents and F1, 100 plants in F2 and 20 plants in backcrosses laid out in a randomized complete block design in three replications. The obser va tions wer e r ecor ded for 9 economica l characters viz., days to first female flower opening, Character Cross P1 P2 MP F1 F2 B1 B2 Days to 1 29.10 ± 37.23 ± 33.16 37.96 ± 35.25 ± 33.66 ± 38.00 ± 1st female 0.73 0.93 0.84 0.43 1.62 0.90 flower 2 28.93 ± 38.13 ± 33.53 39.10 ± 34.47 ± 30.10 ± 36.66 ± opening 0.67 0.85 0.71 0.43 0.67 1.02 Days to 1 0.00 ± 29.23 ± 14.61 27.53 ± 24.25 ± 17.63 ± 31.06 ± 1st male 0.00 0.68 0.75 1.49 5.71 0.60 flower 2 0.00 ± 28.93 ± 14.46 25.20 ± 25.07 ± 15.56 ± 33.16 ± opening 0.00 0.83 0.48 1.46 5.03 0.75 Node 1 0.00 ± 5.80 ± 2.90 4.33 ± 3.77 ± 2.50 ± 5.26 ± bearing 0.00 0.47 0.26 0.24 0.82 0.32 1st male 2 0.00 ± 6.96 ± 3.48 5.33 ± 4.25 ± 2.60 ± 5.83 ± flower 0.00 0.30 0.24 0.26 0.85 0.26 Node 1 4.26 ± 12.40 ± 8.33 9.83 ± 9.40 ± 8.46 ± 13.00 ± bearing 0.31 0.74 0.72 0.37 1.09 0.53 1st female 2 4.26 ± 13.26 ± 8.76 11.86 ± 9.95 ± 7.73 ± 13.33 ± flower 0.31 0.86 0.44 0.38 1.20 0.50 Number 1 42.10 ± 26.56 ± 34.33 37.73 ± 37.57 ± 41.96 ± 29.56 ± of fruits 1.53 1.03 1.19 0.77 3.11 0.85 per 2 42.10 ± 24.49 ± 33.29 35.43 ± 38.01 ± 46.26 ± 30.56 ± plant 1.53 0.83 1.09 0.78 1.83 0.94 Fruit 1 12.23 ± 22.91 ± 17.57 17.70 ± 14.42 ± 13.53 ± 21.15 ± length 0.33 0.28 0.26 0.47 0.21 0.37 (cm) 2 12.23 ± 17.89 ± 15.06 16.57 ± 12.14 ± 13.13 ± 18.52 ± 0.33 0.30 0.47 0.46 0.38 0.30 Fruit 1 4.18 ± 4.57 ± 4.37 4.31 ± 4.26 ± 4.09 ± 4.63 ± diameter 0.11 0.15 0.15 0.04 0.14 0.15 (cm) 2 4.18 ± 5.02 ± 4.61 4.39 ± 4.39 ± 4.12 ± 4.72 ± 0.11 0.08 0.12 0.04 0.11 0.13 Fruit 1 79.56 ± 106.00 ± 92.78 96.63 ± 98.19 ± 77.93 ± 103.46 ± weight 1.38 2.04 3.55 3.39 1.82 1.27 (g) 2 79.56 ± 117.34 ± 98.36 109.43 ± 103.21 ± 83.69 ± 120.63 ± 1.38 3.18 3.81 3.41 1.24 1.42 Yield/ 1 3.54 ± 2.72 ± 3.13 3.26 ± 3.10 ± 3.28 ± 2.18 ± plant 0.12 0.13 0.21 0.16 0.26 0.11 (kg) 2 3.54 ± 2.87 ± 3.18 3.22 ± 3.06 ± 3.31 ± 2.37 ± 0.12 0.18 0.21 0.16 0.35 0.29 1: IIHRBTGy - 491× IIHR Sel -19 -1; 2: IIHRBTGy - 491× IIHR Sel -78-4 Table 1. Generation means for different characters 217 Generation mean analysis of important yield traits in Bitter gourd days to 1st male flower opening, node bearing 1st male flower, node bearing 1st female flower, number of fruits per plant, fruit length (cm), fruit diameter (cm), single Fruit weight (g) and fruit yield/ plant (g). Data from three replications was pooled to calculate mean values for all of the attributes investigated for the parents (P1 and P2), F1’s (P1 × P2), F2’s (F1’s selfed) and their first- generation backcrosses (B1’s = F1 ×P1 and B2’s = F1 ×P2). The ABCD scaling tests of Mather and Jinks (1982) were employed to detect the presence of non- allelic interactions before calculating the different parameters. In addition to scaling test data was further subjected to joint scaling (Deb and Khaleque 2009). The parameters for the various gene effects employed in this investigation are the same as those used by Hayman (1960) namely, mean (m), additive (d), dominance (h), additive × additive (i), additive × dominance (j) and dominance × dominance (l). The OPSTAT software was used to perform the generation mean analysis. RESULT AND DISCUSSION The information regarding gene action, interaction and inheritance study is the key factor for designing appropriate breeding strategy for improvement of any crop. The gynoecious parent IIHRBTGy – 491 was superior for node for first female flowering, number of fruits and yield/plant whereas the monoecious parents were superior for fruit length, fruit diameter and fruit weight. The mean performance of F 1 surpassed the mid parent for number of fruits, fruit length, fruit weight and yield per plant (Table - 1) in both the crosses (IIHRBTGy - 491 × IIHR Sel -19 - 1 and IIHRBTGy - 491× IIHR Sel-78-4). The superior performance of F1 over mid parent indicated that these traits can be exploited through heterosis breeding. These findings are consistent with the findings of Dey et al. (2012) and Mishra et al (2015). The reduction in mean performance of F2 population than F1 for fruit length and yield in both crosses was observed, implying influence of inbreeding depression. Rathod et al. (2021) also obtained similar results in bitter gourd. Days to 1st female flower opening In IIHRBTGy - 491 × IIHR Sel -19 -1cross, C scale was significant (4.25) (Table - 2) and dominance component (h ) was also significant (7.12) (Table - 3). The opposite sign of h (7.12) and l (-3.38) indicates presence of duplicate epistasis. Mishra et al (2015) reported similar gene interaction for the trait days to first flowering in the cross of DBGy 201 × Pusa Do Mausami indicating selection at later generation. However, in IIHRBTGy - 491× IIHR Sel-78-4 all four scales were significant which indicate the inadequacy of simple additive-dominance model to estimate the gene effects. The similar sign of h (2.20) and l (16.09) indicates presence of complementary epistasis. Kumari et al. (2015) reported additive gene effect and Rani et al. (2014) reported presence of dominance and epistasis for the trait. Days to 1st male flower opening In IIHRBTGy - 491 × IIHR Sel-19-1 cross, B (2.63) and C (3.27) scale and dominance component (21.29) were significant. The similar sign of h (21.29) and l (2.52) indicates presence of complementary epistasis. Similarly, in IIHRBTGy - 491× IIHR Sel-78-4 cross, A (4.06) and B (-2.20) scales were significant which indicate the inadequacy of simple additive-dominance model to estimate the gene effects. The similar sign of h (17.89) and l (4. 70) indicate presence of complementary epistasis. Kumari et al. (2015) and Thangamani (2016) reported additive gene effect for days to 1st male flowering. Node bearing 1st male flower In both the crosses all the scaling tests, namely, A, B, C and D were insignificant for node bearing 1st male flower. It was determined that the additive–dominance model is sufficient to expla in the effects. The sufficiency of the simple additive–dominance model implies that nonallelic interaction is absent and generation means are solely dependent on the additive– dominance effect of the gene. Additive gene action may be predominant for inheritance and selection should be delayed to later generations for this trait. Similar result reported by Thangamani (2016). Node bearing 1st female flower In IIHRBTGy - 491 × IIHR Sel -19 -1 cross, C (4.72) and D (-2.66) scale and dominance (9.82) component were significant. Non-additive component has a significant role in the inheritance of this trait. The opposite sign of h (9.82) and l (-5.92) indicates pr esence of duplica te epista sis. Simila r ly, in IIHRBTGy - 491× IIHR Sel-78-4 cross, C (3.44) and D (-2.15) scales were significant. The opposite sign of h (8.40) and l (-5.17) indicates presence of duplicate J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 16(2) : 215-221, 2021 218 Table 2. Scaling test Character Cross A B C D Days to 1st 1 -0.26 ± 1.98 -0.80 ± 1.27 4.25 ± 1.54** -1.16 ± 1.18 female flower opening 2 7.83 ± 0.96** 3.90 ± 1.34** 7.37 ± 1.44** 2.18 ± 0.86** Days to 1st 1 0.26 ± 6.61 2.63 ± 0.91** 3.27 ± 3.57** -0.18 ± 3.73 male flower opening 2 4.06 ± 5.81** -2.20 ± 1.03** -0.97 ± 3.47 1.42 ± 3.39 Node bearing 1 -0.66 ± 0.96 -0.40 ± 0.48 -0.61 ± 0.70 -0.22 ± 0.58 1st male flower 2 0.13 ± 0.99 0.63 ± 0.37 0.63 ± 0.69 0.06 ± 0.59 Node bearing 1 0.16 ± 1.34 -0.76 ± 0.86 4.72 ± 1.29** -2.66 ± 0.82* 1st female flower 2 -0.33 ± 1.42 -0.53 ± 0.81 3.44 ± 1.14** -2.15 ± 0.87* Number 1 8.90 ± 3.76** 8.16 ± 1.34** 13.82 ± 2.50** 1.62 ± 2.06 of fruits per plant 2 1.00 ± 2.38 11.76 ± 1.35** 14.36 ± 2.42** -0.80 ± 1.49 Fruit 1 2.75 ± 0.34* 6.19 ± 0.48** 12.63 ± 1.17** -2.84 ± 0.60* length (cm) 2 2.54 ± 0.55* 1.52 ± 0.47 10.79 ± 1.22** -3.36 ± 0.60** Fruit 1 -0.02 ± 0.20 -2.10 ± 0.21* -3.15 ± 0.23** 0.01 ± 0.13 diameter (cm) 2 0.04 ± 0.16 2.49 ± 0.17* 4.66 ± 0.19** -0.06 ± 0.11 Fruit 1 47.32 ± 3.04** -11.63 ± 2.88** 24.03 ± 8.95** 5.82 ± 4.13** weight (g) 2 43.12 ± 3.15** -5.00 ± 3.30** 30.41± 9.25** 3.85 ± 4.16** Yield/ 1 2.61 ± 0.34* 0.63 ± 0.20 2.79 ± 0.46* 0.73 ± 0.25 plant (kg) 2 2.44 ± 0.34* 0.80 ± 0.21 3.93 ± 0.46** 0.65 ± 0.25 *, ** significant at 5 and 1% probability respectively 1: IIHRBTGy - 491 × IIHR Sel - 19 - 1; 2: IIHRBTGy - 491 × IIHR Sel - 78 - 4 epistasis. Similar result obtained by Mishra et al. (2015) and additive gene action for the trait reported by Thangamani (2016). Number of fruits per plant In both the crosses, B and C scales were significant and dominance component, dominance × dominance components were significantly higher compared to additive component which indicate the inadequacy of simple additive-dominance model to estimate the gene effects. The similar sign of h and l indicates presence of complementary epistasis in both the cross. Similar result reported by Mishra et al. (2015) in DBGy 201 × Pusa Do Mausami cross and complementary epistasis observed in DBGy 201 × S-2 cross. Shukla et al. (2014) reported insignificant 2 value for number of fruits/plant, internodal length, seeds/fruit and yield/ plant in Gy333 × DRAR-1 cross indicating the absence of non-allelic interaction. Fruit length In IIHRBTGy - 491 × IIHR Sel -19 -1 cross, all the scaling tests, namely, A, B, C and D were significant and dominance component was higher compared to additive component. The similar sign of h (3.71) and l (5.26) indicates presence of complementary epistasis. However, in IIHRBTGy - 491× IIHR Sel-78-4cross, A, C and D scales were significant and dominance, additive × additive components were in positive direction indicating their significant role in inheritance Swamini et al J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 16(2) : 215-221, 2021 219 Table 3. Estimates of components of generation mean for different yield related character in bitter gourd Character Cross m d h i j l Epistasis Days to 1 35.25 ± -4.33 ± 7.12 ± 2.32 ± -0.53 ± -3.38 ± D 1st female 0.24 1.07** 2.44** 2.36* 2.25 4.56** D flower 2 34.47 ± -6.56 ± 2.20 ± -4.36 ± -3.93 ± 16.09 ± C opening 0.25 0.70** 1.81* 1.73** 1.55** 3.18** C Days to 1 24.25 ± -13.43 ± 21.29 ± 0.37 ± 2.36 ± 2.52 ± C 1st male 0.87 3.31** 7.49** 7.43 6.64* 13.74* C flower 2 25.07 ± -17.60 ± 17.89 ± -2.84 ± -6.26 ± 4.70 ± C opening 0.84 2.93** 6.79** 6.78* 5.89** 12.24** C Node 1 3.77 ± 2.77 ± 1.89 ± 0.45 ± 0.27 ± -1.52 ± - bearing 0.14 0.50* 1.18 1.16 1.05 1.09 - 1st male 2 4.25 ± 3.23 ± 1.72 ± -0.13 ± 0.50 ± 0.90 ± - flower 0.15 0.51* 1.20 1.19 2.17 2.15 - Node 1 9.40 ± -4.53 ± 9.82 ± 5.32 ± -0.93 ± -5.92 ± D bearing 0.21 0.70** 1.72** 1.65** 1.48 3.10** D 1st female 2 9.95 ± -4.60 ± 8.40 ± 4.30 ± -0.20 ± -5.17 ± D flower 0.21 0.75** 1.78** 1.74** 1.59 3.22** D Number 1 37.57 ± 3.82 ± 10.40 ± -3.24 ± -0.73 ± 20.30 ± C of fruits 0.44 1.86** 4.22** 4.13** 3.87 7.85** C per 2 38.01 ± 4.25 ± 15.70 ± 1.60 ± 10.76 ± 11.16 ± C plant 0.45 1.19** 3.10** 2.99 2.59** 5.35** C Fruit 1 14.42 ± -3.62 ± 3.71 ± 3.68 ± 3.44 ± 5.26 ± C length 0.27 0.24** 1.22** 1.21** 0.55** 1.53** C (cm) 2 14.14 ± -5.39 ± 6.19 ± 6.73 ± -1.02 ± -2.66 ± D 0.26 0.28** 1.24** 1.20** 0.62 1.66* D Fruit 1 4.26 ± 2.05 ± 2.26 ± -1.02 ± -2.07 ± -5.10 ± D diameter 0.02 0.12* 0.28* 0.26 0.27* 0.54** D (cm) 2 4.35± -1.20 ± -3.15 ± 2.13 ± 4.44 ± 11.40 ± D 0.71 0.10 0.24** 0.23* 0.21** 0.44** D Fruit 1 108.19 ± -48.21 ± 7.19 ± -11.65 ± -58.96 ± 47.34 ± C weight 1.95 1.33** 8.55** 8.27** 3.03** 10.43** C (g) 2 107.21 ± -54.70 ± 1.52 ± -7.71 ± -48.12 ± 45.84 ± C 1.97 1.33** 8.67 8.32** 3.34** 10.68** C Yield/ 1 4.10 ± -0.90 ± -4.48 ± -1.46 ± -1.97 ± 4.71 ± D plant 0.09 0.17 0.52** 0.50 0.35 0.82** D (kg) 2 4.06 ± -0.90 ± -3.67 ± -1.31 ± -1.63 ± 4.56 ± D 0.09 0.17 0.52** 0.50 0.36 0.82** D *, ** significant at 5 and 1% probability respectively 1: IIHRBTGy - 491× IIHR Sel -19 -1; 2: IIHRBTGy - 491× IIHR Sel -78-4 C: Complementary epistasis, D: Duplicate epistasis of the trait. Presence of duplicate epistasis is noticed. Similar result obtained by Mishra et al. 2015 for fruit length in both DBGy 201 × S-2 and DBGy 201 × Pusa Do Mausami) whereas incomplete dominance effect for fruit length reported by Kumari et al. (2015). Fruit diameter In both the crosses, B and C scale were significant. In IIHRBTGy - 491× IIHR Sel -19 -1 cross additive (2.05) and dominance (2.26) components were significant while in IIHRBTGy - 491× IIHR Sel -78- Generation mean analysis of important yield traits in Bitter gourd J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 16(2) : 215-221, 2021 220 4 cross dominance × dominance (11.40) component was significant. The opposite sign of h and l indicates presence of duplicate epistasis in both the crosses. In such circumstances, available populations must be carried to future generations in order to arrive at the best-fit model (Mather and Jinks 1982). The opposite signs of h and l neutralize each other, resulting in reduced heterosis for the trait. Similar result obtained by Mishra et al. (2015). Fruit weight In both the crosses, all the scaling tests, namely, A, B, C, D were significant and dominance × dominance (l) component was significantly higher. Non-additive component has significant role in the inheritance of this trait. The similar sign of h and l indicates presence of complementary epistasis. In contrary to the result, duplicate epistasis with predominance of additive × dominance gene action reported by Mishra et al. (2015) in both the crosses i.e DBGy 201 × S-2 and DBGy 201 × Pusa Do Mausami and Thangamani (2016) reported presence of additive gene action for fruit weight. Yield/plant In both the crosses, A and C scales were significant and dominance × dominance (l) component was higher a nd in positive dir ection. Non-a dditive component has a significant role in the inheritance for yield per plant. The opposite sign of h and l indicates presence of duplicate epistasis. Similar result obtained by Mishra et al. (2015) in both the crosses namely DBGy 201 × S-2 and DBGy 201 × Pusa Do Mausami and Shukla et al. (2014) in Cross Gy323 × DRAR-1. The opposite signs neutralize each other. It also shows reduced variability in segregating generations, which prevents the selection and makes them challenging to use in breeding programmes (Parihar et al. 2016). CONCLUSION The mean performance of F1 surpassed the mid parent for number of fruits, fruit length, fruit weight and yield per plant in both the crosses indicating that these traits can be exploited through heterosis breeding. The reduction in mean performance of F2 population than F1 for fruit length and yield in both crosses was observed which apparently indicated influence of inbreeding depression. Significance of one or more scaling tests, i.e. A, B, C and D in most of the traits revealed the presence of epistasis in both the crosses except for node bearing 1st male flower where additive gene action was predominant. Characters showing complimentary epistasis have the possibility of considerable amount of heterosis for the trait and characters showing duplicate epistasis have the possibilities of obtaining transgressive segregants in later generations in the particular cross. REFERENCE Behera, T. K., Behera, S., Bharathi, L. K., John, K. J., Simon, P. W., and Staub, J. E. 2010. Bitter gourd: botany, horticulture, Breeding. Horticultural reviews, 37, 101. Deb, A. C. and Khaleque, M. A. 2009. Nature of gene action of some quantitative traits in c hic kp ea ( C i c e r a r i e t i n u m L . ) . Wo r l d Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 5(3), 361- 368. Dey, S. S., Behera, T. K., Munshi, A. D., Rakshit, S. and Bhatia, R. 2012. Utility of gynoecious sex form in heterosis breeding of bitter gourd and genetics of associated vegetative and f lower ing t r a it s . I n d i a n J o u r n a l o f Horticulture 69(4): 523–29. Hayman, B. I. 1960. The separation of epistatic from additive and dominance variation in generation means. Heredity 12: 371–90. Kumari, M., Behera, T. K., Munshi, A. D., and Talukadar, A. 2015. Inheritance of fruit traits and generation mean analysis for estimation of horticultural traits in bitter gourd. Indian Journal of Horticulture, 72(1), 43-48. Mather, K. and Jinks, J. L. 1982. Introduction to Biometrical Genetics. 3rd edition. Chapman and Hall Ltd., London, 396pp. Mishra, S., Behera, T. K., Munshi, A. D., Bharadwaj, C. , & Ra o, A. R. 2015. Inher ita nce of gynoecism and genetics of yield and yield contributing traits through generation mean analysis in bitter gourd. Indian Journal of Horticulture, 72(2), 218-222. Parihar, A. K., Dixit, G. P. and Singh, D. 2016. Gene interactions and genetics for yield and its attributes in grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.). Journal of genetics, 95(4), 947-956. Swamini et al J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 16(2) : 215-221, 2021 221 Rani, K. R., Reddy, K. R. and Raju, C. S. 2014. Inheritance of yield and its related traits in bitter gourd (Momordica charantia L.). Molecular Plant Breeding, 5. Rathod, V., Behera, T. K. and Munshi, A. D. 2021. Genetic analysis for yield and its attributes in bitter gourd (Momordica charantia L.). Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 91(1), 68-73. (Received on 05.11.2021, Revised on 06.01.2022 and Accepted on 18.01.2022) Shukla, A., Singh, U., Rai, A. K., Bharadwaj, D. R. and Singh, M. 2014. Genetic analysis of yield a nd yield a ttr ibuting tr a its in bitter gourd. Vegetable Science, 41(1), 37-41. Thangamani, C. 2016. Genetic analysis in bitter gourd (Momordica charantia L. ) for yield and component cha ra cter s. Asian Journal of Horticulture, 11(2), 313-318. Generation mean analysis of important yield traits in Bitter gourd J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 16(2) : 215-221, 2021 00 Contents.pdf 10 Swamini.pdf 19 Lamesssa.pdf 20 Divya.pdf 21 Wani.pdf 23 Index and Last Pages.pdf