48 J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 14(1) : 48-57, 2019 Original Research Paper Heterosis and combining ability for yield and its related traits in ridge gourd [Luffa acutangula (L.)Roxb.] B. Varalakshmi*, M. Pitchaimuthu and E. Sreenivasa Rao Division of Vegetable Crops ICAR-Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Bengaluru - 560 089, Karnataka, India *E-mail: Varalakshmi.B@icar.gov.in ABSTRACT Line × Tester analysis involving three lines and four testers was carried out in ridge gourd [Luffa acutangula (Roxb.) L.]. Significant variation was noticed in the mean performance of the parents and hybrids for all the characters studied except for vine length and fruit girth. The results from GCA and SCA variance indicated the predominance of non-additive gene action for all the traits except fruit girth. Significant heterosis of 177.78% over standard check, Arka Sumeet for fruit weight per plant was expressed by the cross GARG-1 × CO-1. The best general combiners were GARG-1 and Pusa Nutan among the lines, and Jaipur long and CO-1 among testers. Best specific combining ability effects for fruit length and yield (t/ ha) were recorded by the crosses Pusa Nasdar × Arka Sumeet and GARG-1 × CO-1. Key words: Heterosis, combining ability, gca, sca, ridge gourd. INTRODUCTION Ridge gourd [Luffa acutangula (L.) Roxb.] is a commercially important vegetable crop because it ha s good yield p otentia l a nd good medicina l pr oper ties a s well. Ridge gour d ca n be grown throughout the year. It is cultivated from central and eastern Asia to south-eastern Asia. Of late, exploita tion of hybr id vigour a nd selection of par ents on the ba sis of combining a bility ha s become c r uc ia l in cr op imp r ovement. It is a monoecious and cross pollinated crop, thus exhibits considerable heterozygosity, but does not have inbreeding depression. This results in the presence of na tur a l va r ia bility in the popula tion. T his provides sufficient scope for utilization of heterosis on c ommer c ia l s c a le whic h inc r ea s es t he production potential and productivity of ridge gourd. Combining ability helps in identifying the best general and specific combiners for yield and yield contributing characters. Hence the present study wa s u nder ta ken t o es tima te t he het er os is of different cross combinations and also to estimate the general and specific combining ability to identify t he b es t p er f or ming p a r ent s a nd hyb r ids respectively in ridge gourd. MATERIAL AND METHODS The experimental material comprised of 7 parents (3 lines and 4 testers) viz; GARG-1, Pusa Nutan, Pusa Nasdar used as lines and four testers namely Arka Sumeet, Arka Sujat, Jaipur Long and CO-1 and twelve F1s produced during 2013 by crossing these parents in Line × Tester mating design. These hybrids along with seven parents were evaluated for yield and yield related traits in randomized block design with three replications in the Vegetable Farm, ICAR-IIHR, Bengaluru during summer and kharif seasons of 2014-15 and 2015-16. Plant to plant spacing was maintained at 50 cm and row to row was 150 cm. Data were recorded on five randomly selected plants in each treatment (hybrids and parents) for ten characters viz; node number for first female flower appeara nce, days ta ken for first female flower appearance, vine length, number of branches, fruit length, fruit girth, fruit number/plant, fruit weight, fruit weight/plant and fruit yield/ha. Heterosis over better parent and standard check, Arka Sumeet was calculated for each character and significance was tested. The covariance of half-sibs and full-sibs were used for obtaining the estimates of general and specific combining ability effects as per the procedure outlined by Kempthorne (1957). 49 Heterosis and combining ability in ridge gourd J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 14(1) : 48-57, 2019 RESULT AND DISCUSSION The mean performance of parents and hybrids for various traits has been presented in Table 1. The analysis of var iance showed highly significa nt differences for all the characters studied except for vine length and fruit girth (Table 2). Similarly variance due to parents was also highly significant for a ll t he cha r a ct er s exc ept f or vine length indicating presence of sufficient variability among t he p a r ent s f or t he c ha r a c t er s s t u died. T he variance due to parents versus crosses differed significantly for most of the characters except for vine length, fruit girth and per fruit weight indicating the pr esence of het er osis for t he cha r a ct er s. Significant differences were observed among the crosses and Line × tester for all the characters except for vine length, fruit length and fruit girth. Similarly Narasannavar et al (2014b) observed a non-significant variance due to Line × Tester for vine length in r idge gourd. T he ma gnitude of variance due to SCA was higher than the GCA variance and also the GCA : SCA was less than a unity for all the characters except for fruit girth, confirming the predominance of non additive gene action indicating the exploitation of heterosis for all these characters. The findings are in conformation with Ladom et al., (2009) and Narasannavar et al (2014b). But the GCA variance was higher than that of SCA variance and also negative for fruit girth. Among all the crosses it has been observed that ten crosses for node to first female flower appearance and nine crosses for days to flowering showed negative and significant heterosis over the better parent, similarly Kantharaj (2003) and Sarkar et al (2015) also reported the negative and significant heterosis for these characters. Only one cross each for fruit length, fruit girth and fruit weight showed significant positive heterosis over the better parent value. Whereas 11 crosses for number of fruits per plant and all crosses for fruit weight per plant and yield (t/ha) showed significantly positive heterosis over the better parent. These results are in confirmation with Narasannavar et al (2014a), Mole et al (2001), Kumar et al (1999) for number of fruits per plant and fruit weight per plant. However, for vine length and number of branches there is no significant favorable heterosis over the better parent. Previously Kumar et al (1999) also reported non-significant heterosis for number of branches in bottle gourd. Significant heterosis has been observed over the standard check, Arka Sumeet in ten crosses for node to first female flower appearance, eight crosses for days to first female flower appearance and all crosses for fruit number per plant, fruit weight per plant and yield (t/ha) (Table 3) in the favorable direction. For fruit weight per plant and yield (t/ha) the cross GARG-1 x CO-1 has recorded significant standard heterosis i.e. 177.78% for fruit weight per plant and 173.22% for yield (t/ha) over the standard check Arka Sumeet (Table 4). For node to first female flower appearance (70.61%) and days to first female flower appearance (24.48%) the cross Pusa Nutan x Arka Sujat recorded significant heterosis in favorable direction. Hence, these hybrids can be exploited for commercial purpose. Similarly Mole et al (2001) in ridge gourd and Kumar et al.,(1999) in bottle gourd reported standard heterosis for node to first female flower appearance, number of fruits per plant and fruit yield per plant. The perusal of the data on GCA effects of lines indicated that GARG-1 and Pusa Nutan were found to be best general combiner for node to first female flower appea rance, da ys to fir st female flower appearance, vine length, fruit length, fruit number per plant, per fruit weight and yield (t/ha) (Table 5). T hese lines can be utilized in evolving highly productive hybrids. The significant heterotic crosses for various characters in the present study had these lines as one of the parents. Among the testers Jaipur long and CO-1 were proved to be good general combiners for days to first female flower appearance, vine length, number of fruits per plant, per fruit weight and yield (t/ha). Heterosis study also indicated the impor ta nce of these tester s beca use of their involvement in majority of the significant heterotic crosses for various characters. Promising crosses based on significant SCA effects and per se performance revealed that the cross Pusa Nutan x Arka Sujat was most promising for days taken for first female flower appearance. The cross GARG-1 x Jaipur Long was promising for vine length (Table 6). Pusa Nasdar x Arka Sumeet had the high SCA along with superior performance for fruit length and per fruit weight (Table 6 & 7). For fr uit number per plant only the cr oss 50 Varalakshmi et al J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 14(1) : 48-57, 2019 V in e N um be r of Fr ui t Fr ui t N um be r Fr ui t Y ie ld / Pa re nt s / H yb ri ds N FF D FF le ng th br an ch es / le ng th gi rt h of fr ui ts / w ei gh t Pl an t (c m ) pl an t (c m ) (c m ) pl an t (g ) (k g) G A R G -1 5. 83 54 .3 0 33 5. 00 8. 00 28 .3 0 15 .9 7 3. 33 18 0. 80 0. 60 Pu sa N ut an 3. 80 50 .4 0 18 0. 67 7. 67 27 .9 3 15 .2 7 3. 50 15 1. 27 0. 50 Pu sa N as da r 10 .8 7 62 .1 0 30 8. 33 7. 00 27 .2 0 13 .2 7 3. 33 18 4. 37 0. 60 A rk a Su m ee t 11 .0 0 58 .0 0 28 3. 00 9. 33 34 .8 0 15 .6 0 3. 43 26 7. 90 0. 90 A rk a Su ja t 12 .3 3 73 .3 3 28 2. 67 9. 00 27 .3 3 14 .9 3 5. 27 18 3. 10 0. 97 Ja ip ur L on g 6. 10 56 .8 3 29 4. 00 11 .0 0 23 .3 3 12 .4 0 6. 93 15 7. 07 1. 13 C O -1 13 .8 3 62 .5 0 32 2. 33 7. 00 28 .6 0 13 .2 0 5. 77 22 4. 53 1. 27 G A R G -1 × A rk a Su m ee t 6. 37 49 .8 3 26 4. 67 5. 33 30 .6 0 15 .4 0 14 .4 0 14 9. 87 2. 10 G A R G -1 × A rk a Su ja t 6. 17 53 .3 3 28 2. 67 7. 00 26 .8 7 14 .5 3 8. 17 16 5. 90 1. 33 G A R G -1 × J ai pu r L on g 7. 10 53 .6 7 34 9. 00 8. 33 27 .9 3 13 .0 7 11 .0 0 19 2. 70 2. 10 G A R G -1 × C O -1 6. 33 56 .6 0 28 5. 00 6. 33 30 .5 3 14 .5 3 11 .7 3 21 4. 73 2. 50 Pu sa N ut an × A rk a Su m ee t 5. 77 49 .1 0 23 3. 00 5. 00 32 .5 3 13 .2 7 9. 00 21 1. 07 1. 90 Pu sa N ut an × A rk a Su ja t 3. 23 43 .8 0 21 7. 00 6. 33 34 .7 3 13 .9 3 10 .2 3 17 6. 73 1. 80 Pu sa N ut an × J ai pu r L on g 7. 60 52 .9 7 25 6. 67 7. 67 32 .3 3 14 .1 3 12 .2 7 17 1. 77 2. 10 Pu sa N ut an × C O -1 7. 20 53 .0 7 18 3. 33 4. 00 32 .0 0 14 .1 3 9. 87 19 6. 73 1. 93 Pu sa N as da r × A rk a Su m ee t 7. 90 53 .6 0 25 1. 33 8. 33 36 .8 7 15 .0 7 5. 57 26 1. 77 1. 50 Pu sa N as da r × A rk a Su ja t 9. 60 58 .8 3 32 4. 33 6. 33 29 .9 3 14 .6 3 6. 07 21 8. 30 1. 30 Pu sa N as da r × J ai pu r L on g 7. 53 56 .0 7 26 7. 00 7. 67 29 .7 3 15 .1 7 10 .5 0 18 6. 73 1. 97 Pu sa N as da r × C O -1 9. 70 59 .8 3 28 2. 33 8. 33 31 .2 0 15 .7 3 8. 30 22 2. 30 1. 83 M ea n va lu e of P ar en ts 9. 11 59 .6 4 28 6. 57 8. 43 28 .2 1 14 .3 8 4. 51 19 2. 72 0. 85 M ea n va lu e of h yb ri ds 7. 04 53 .3 9 26 6. 36 6. 72 31 .2 7 14 .4 7 9. 76 19 7. 38 1. 86 S. E m + /- 1. 02 1. 93 40 .0 1 0. 90 2. 19 0. 92 0. 68 13 .4 1 0. 13 C D ( P= 0. 05 ) 2. 92 5. 55 11 4. 75 2. 58 6. 28 2. 63 1. 94 38 .4 8 0. 37 N ot e: N FF : no de n um be r fo r fi rs t fe m al e flo w er a pp ea ra nc e, D FF : da ys t ak en f or f irs t fe m al e fl ow er a pp ea ra nc e Ta bl e 1. P er s e pe rf or m an ce o f pa re nt s, t he ir h yb ri ds f or y ie ld a nd r el at ed t ra its 51 J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 14(1) : 48-57, 2019 Heterosis and combining ability in ridge gourd Ta bl e 2. M ea n su m o f sq ua re s fo r te n qu an tit at iv e ch ar ac te rs i n L × T a na ly si s in r id ge g ou rd   C ha ra ct er s R ep lic at io ns G en ot yp e C ro ss es Pa re nt s Pa re nt s V s L in es Te st er s L x T E rr or C ro ss es   df 2 18 11 6 1 2 3 6 36 1 N FF 0. 56 23 .1 7* * 8. 94 ** 43 .6 7* * 56 .7 1* * 25 .1 3* * 3. 79 N S 6. 12 * 3. 10 2 D FF 21 .8 5 11 8. 45 ** 57 .8 3* * 16 3. 10 ** 51 7. 43 ** 16 2. 08 ** 56 .4 8* * 23 .7 6* 11 .2 3 3 V ei n le ng th ( cm ) 45 11 .9 1 65 04 .5 3N S 59 52 .1 5N S 76 98 .4 1N S 54 17 .4 3N S 17 90 9. 19 ** 36 29 .2 9N S 31 27 .9 0N S 48 01 .6 5 4 N um be r of B ra nc h 1. 91 7. 98 ** 6. 11 ** 6. 30 ** 38 .6 2* * 11 .0 3* * 5. 67 * 4. 69 * 2. 43 5 Fr ui t l en gt h (c m ) 30 .4 8 32 .1 4* 22 .4 3N S 34 .6 2* 12 4. 04 ** 49 .9 6* * 19 .3 4N S 14 .8 0N S 14 .3 6 6 Fr ui t g ir th (c m ) 6. 82 3. 16 N S 1. 98 N S 5. 82 * 0. 11 N S 5. 00 * 0. 76 N S 1. 59 N S 2. 53 7 Fr ui t n um be r/ pl an t 0. 89 34 .2 1* * 19 .2 3* * 6. 49 ** 36 5. 40 ** 44 .5 0* * 14 .5 9* * 13 .1 2* * 1. 38 8 Fr ui t w ei gh t ( g) 10 92 .4 3 33 68 .9 3* * 27 70 .7 3* * 49 79 .0 2* * 28 8. 54 N S 57 81 .8 7* * 17 72 .2 6* * 22 66 .2 4* * 53 9. 88 9 Fr ui t w ei gh t/p la nt 0. 09 1. 06 ** 0. 36 ** 0. 26 ** 13 .5 7* * 0. 43 ** 0. 71 ** 0. 16 ** 0. 05 10 Fr ui t y ie ld ( t/h a) 15 .2 2 18 5. 92 ** 65 .0 1* * 43 .4 2* * 23 70 .9 6* * 76 .3 0* * 12 6. 01 ** 30 .7 4* * 8. 47 N ot e: N FF : no de n um be r fo r fi rs t fe m al e flo w er a pp ea ra nc e, D FF : da ys t ak en f or f ir st f em al e flo w er a pp ea ra nc e 52 J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 14(1) : 48-57, 2019 Varalakshmi et al Ta bl e 3. H et er ob el ti os is o f th e pr om is in g cr os se s in r id ge g ou rd V in e N um be r of Fr ui t Fr ui t N um be r of Fr ui t Y ie ld / Fr ui t C ro ss N FF D FF le ng th br an ch es / le ng th gi rt h fr ui ts / w ei gh t Pl an t yi el d (c m ) p la nt (c m ) (c m ) p la nt (g ) (k g) (t /h a) G A R G -1 × A rk a Su m ee t -4 2. 12 ** -1 4. 08 ** -2 1 -4 2. 86 ** -1 2. 07 -3 .5 5 31 9. 42 ** -4 4. 06 ** 13 3. 33 ** 13 0. 06 ** G A R G -1 × A rk a Su ja t -5 0* * -2 7. 27 ** -1 5. 62 -2 2. 22 * -5 .0 7 -8 .9 8 55 .0 6* * -9 .3 9 37 .9 3* 36 .8 8* G A R G -1 × J ai pu r L on g 16 .3 9 -5 .5 7 4. 18 -2 4. 24 ** -1 .3 -1 8. 16 ** 58 .6 5* * 6. 58 85 .2 9* * 91 .5 3* * G A R G -1 × C O -1 -5 4. 22 ** -9 .4 4* * -1 4. 93 -2 0. 83 6. 76 -8 .9 8 10 3. 47 ** -4 .3 7 97 .3 7* * 93 .0 5* * Pu sa N ut an × A S um ee t -4 7. 58 ** -1 5. 35 ** -1 7. 67 -4 6. 43 ** -6 .5 1 -1 4. 96 * 15 7. 14 ** -2 1. 21 ** 11 1. 11 ** 10 7. 38 ** Pu sa N ut an × A rk a Su ja t -7 3. 78 ** -4 0. 27 ** -2 3. 23 -2 9. 63 ** 24 .3 4* * -8 .7 3 94 .3 ** -3 .4 8 86 .2 1* * 87 .5 3* * Pu sa N ut an × J ai pu r L on g 24 .5 9 -6 .8 -1 2. 7 -3 0. 3* * 15 .7 5 -7 .4 2 76 .9 2* * 9. 36 85 .2 9* * 92 .9 1* * Pu sa N ut an × C O 1 -4 7. 95 ** -1 5. 09 ** -4 3. 12 ** -4 7. 83 ** 11 .8 9 -7 .4 2 71 .1 ** -1 2. 38 52 .6 3* * 49 .8 1* * Pu sa N as da r × A rk a Su m ee t -2 8. 18 ** -1 3. 69 ** -1 8. 49 -1 0. 71 5. 94 -3 .4 2 62 .1 4* * -2 .2 9 66 .6 7* * 60 .6 6* * Pu sa N as da r × A rk a Su ja t -2 2. 16 * -1 9. 77 ** 5. 19 -2 9. 63 ** 9. 51 -2 .0 1 15 .1 9 18 .4 1* 34 .4 8* 37 .4 * Pu sa N as da r × Ja ip ur L on g -3 0. 68 ** -9 .7 2* * -1 3. 41 -3 0. 3* * 9. 31 14 .3 2 51 .4 4* * 1. 28 73 .5 3* * 79 .1 8* * Pu sa N as da r × C O -1 -2 9. 88 ** -4 .2 7 -1 2. 41 19 .0 5 9. 09 18 .5 9* 43 .9 3* * -1 44 .7 4* * 42 .2 8* * N ot e: N FF : no de n um be r fo r fi rs t fe m al e flo w er a pp ea ra nc e, D FF : da ys t ak en f or f irs t fe m al e fl ow er a pp ea ra nc e 53 J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 14(1) : 48-57, 2019 Heterosis and combining ability in ridge gourd Ta bl e 4. S ta nd ar d he te ro si s of t he p ro m is in g cr os se s in r id ge g ou rd V in e N um be r of Fr ui t Fr ui t N um be r of Fr ui t Y ie ld / Fr ui t C ro ss N FF D FF le ng th br an ch es / le ng th gi rt h fr ui ts / w ei gh t Pl an t yi el d (c m ) p la nt (c m ) (c m ) p la nt (g ) (k g) (t /h a) G A R G -1 × A rk a Su m ee t -4 2. 12 ** -1 4. 08 ** -6 .4 8 -4 2. 86 ** -1 2. 07 -1 .2 8 31 9. 42 ** -4 4. 06 ** 13 3. 33 ** 13 0. 06 ** G A R G -1 × A rk a Su ja t -4 3. 94 ** -8 .0 5* -0 .1 2 -2 5* -2 2. 8* * -6 .8 4 13 7. 86 ** -3 8. 07 ** 48 .1 5* * 43 .9 9* * G A R G -1 × J ai pu r L on g -3 5. 46 ** -7 .4 7* 23 .3 2 -1 0. 71 -1 9. 73 ** -1 6. 24 * 22 0. 39 ** -2 8. 07 ** 13 3. 33 ** 12 8. 69 ** G A R G -1 × C O -1 -4 2. 42 ** -2 .4 1 0. 71 -3 2. 14 ** -1 2. 26 -6 .8 4 24 1. 75 ** -1 9. 85 ** 17 7. 78 ** 17 3. 22 ** Pu sa N ut an × A S um ee t -4 7. 58 ** -1 5. 35 ** -1 7. 67 -4 6. 43 ** -6 .5 1 -1 4. 96 * 16 2. 14 ** -2 1. 21 ** 11 1. 11 ** 10 7. 38 ** Pu sa N ut an × A rk a Su ja t -7 0. 61 ** -2 4. 48 ** -2 3. 32 -3 2. 14 ** -0 .1 9 -1 0. 68 19 8. 06 ** -3 4. 03 ** 10 0* * 97 .2 7* * Pu sa N ut an × J ai pu r L on g -3 0. 91 ** -8 .6 8* -9 .3 1 -1 7. 86 -7 .0 9 -9 .4 25 7. 28 ** -3 5. 88 ** 13 3. 33 ** 13 0. 33 ** Pu sa N ut an × C O 1 -3 4. 55 ** -8 .5 1* -3 5. 22 * -5 7. 14 ** -8 .0 5 -9 .4 18 7. 38 ** -2 6. 57 ** 11 4. 82 ** 11 2. 02 ** Pu sa N as da r × A rk a Su m ee t -2 8. 18 ** -7 .5 9* -1 1. 19 -1 0. 71 5. 94 -3 .4 2 62 .1 4* * -2 .2 9 66 .6 7* * 60 .6 6* * Pu sa N as da r × A rk a Su ja t -1 2. 73 1. 44 14 .6 1 -3 2. 14 ** -1 3. 99 * -6 .2 76 .7 ** -1 8. 51 ** 44 .4 4* * 44 .5 4* * Pu sa N as da r × Ja ip ur L on g -3 1. 52 ** -3 .3 3 -5 .6 5 -1 7. 86 -1 4. 56 * -2 .7 8 20 5. 83 ** -3 0. 3* * 11 8. 52 ** 11 3. 93 ** Pu sa N as da r × C O -1 -1 1. 82 3. 16 -0 .2 4 -1 0. 71 -1 0. 35 0. 86 14 1. 75 ** -1 7. 02 ** 10 3. 7* * 10 1. 37 ** N ot e: N FF : no de n um be r fo r fi rs t fe m al e flo w er a pp ea ra nc e, D FF : da ys t ak en f or f irs t fe m al e fl ow er a pp ea ra nc e 54 J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 14(1) : 48-57, 2019 Varalakshmi et al Ta bl e 5. E st im at es o f ge ne ra l co m bi ni ng a bi lit y ef fe ct s of s ev en p ar en ts f or 1 0 qu an tit at iv e ch ar ac te rs i n L × T a na ly si s V in e N um be r of Fr ui t Fr ui t N um be r of Fr ui t Y ie ld / Fr ui t Pa re nt s N FF D FF le ng th br an ch es / le ng th gi rt h fr ui ts / w ei gh t Pl an t yi el d (c m ) p la nt (c m ) (c m ) p la nt (g ) (k g) (t /h a) L in es G A R G -1 -0 .5 5 -0 .0 3 28 .9 7* * 0. 03 -2 .2 9* * -0 .0 8 1. 57 ** -1 6. 58 ** 0. 14 1. 88 ** Pu sa N ut an -1 .0 9* -3 .6 6* * -4 3. 86 ** -0 .9 7 1. 63 ** -0 .6 0 .5 8 -8 .3 1* * 0. 07 0 .9 9 Pu sa N as da r 1. 64 ** 3. 69 ** 14 .8 9* * 0. 94 0. 66 0. 68 -2 .1 5* * 24 .8 9* * -0 .2 1 -2 .8 7* * SE m ± 0. 51 0. 97 20 .0 0 0. 45 1. 09 0. 46 0 .3 4 6. 71 0. 06 0 .8 4 Te st er s A rk a Su m ee t -0 .3 6 -2 .5 5* * -1 6. 69 ** -0 .5 2. 06 ** 0. 11 -0 .1 10 .1 8* * -0 .0 3 - 0. 52 A rk a Su ja t -0 .7 1 -1 .4 0* 8. 31 ** -0 .1 7 -0 .7 6 -0 .1 -1 .6 ** -1 0. 41 ** -0 .3 9 -5 .0 9* * Ja ip ur L on g 0. 37 0. 84 24 .5 3* * 1. 17 -1 .2 7* -0 .3 4 1. 5* -1 3. 65 ** 0. 19 2. 53 ** C O -1 0. 70 3. 11 ** -1 6. 14 ** -0 .5 -0 .0 3 0. 33 0. 21 13 .8 7* * 0. 23 3. 08 ** SE m ± 0 .5 9 1. 12 23 .1 0 0. 52 1. 26 0. 53 0. 39 7 .7 5 0. 07 0. 97 N ot e: N FF : no de n um be r fo r fi rs t fe m al e flo w er a pp ea ra nc e, D FF : da ys t ak en f or f irs t fe m al e fl ow er a pp ea ra nc e 55 J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 14(1) : 48-57, 2019 Heterosis and combining ability in ridge gourd Ta bl e 6. E st im at es o f sp ec ifi c co m bi ni ng a bi lit y ef fe ct s of 1 2 cr os se s fo r 10 q ua nt ita tiv e ch ar ac te rs i n L × T a na ly si s V in e N um be r of Fr ui t Fr ui t N um be r of Fr ui t Y ie ld / Fr ui t C ro ss N FF D FF le ng th br an ch es / le ng th gi rt h fr ui ts / w ei gh t Pl an t yi el d (c m ) p la nt (c m ) (c m ) p la nt (g ) (k g) (t /h a) G A R G -1 × A rk a Su m ee t 0. 24 -0 .9 8 -1 3. 97 ** -0 .9 2 -0 .4 4 0. 91 3. 18 ** -4 1. 12 ** 0. 12 1. 87 G A R G -1 × A rk a Su ja t 0. 38 1. 38 -2 0. 97 ** 0. 42 -1 .3 6 0. 25 -1 .5 6 -4 .4 9* * -0 .2 9 -4 .0 6* * G A R G -1 × J ai pu r L on g 0. 24 -0 .5 3 29 .1 4* * 0. 42 0. 22 -0 .9 7 -1 .8 2 25 .5 5* * -0 .1 -1 .3 4 G A R G -1 × C O -1 -0 .8 6 0. 13 5. 81 ** 0. 08 1. 58 -0 .1 8 0. 2 20 .0 6* * 0. 27 3. 54 ** Pu sa N ut an × A S um ee t 0. 18 1. 91 27 .1 9* * -0 .2 5 -2 .4 3* -0 .7 1 -1 .2 4 11 .8 1* * 0 -0 .0 1 Pu sa N ut an × A rk a Su ja t -2 .0 1 -4 .5 3* * -1 3. 81 ** 0. 75 2. 59 * 0. 17 1. 49 -1 .9 4 0. 25 3. 32 ** Pu sa N ut an × J ai pu r L on g 1. 28 2. 39 * 9. 64 ** 0. 75 0. 71 0. 61 0. 43 -3 .6 6* * -0 .0 3 -0 .2 6 Pu sa N ut an × C O 1 0. 55 0. 23 -2 3. 03 ** -1 .2 5 -0 .8 7 -0 .0 7 -0 .6 8 -6 .2 1* * -0 .2 3 -3 .0 5* * Pu sa N as da r × A rk a Su m ee t -0 .4 2 -0 .9 4 -1 3. 22 ** 1. 17 2. 87 ** -0 .1 9 -1 .9 4 29 .3 1* * -0 .1 2 -1 .8 6 Pu sa N as da r × A rk a Su ja t 1. 63 3. 15 ** 34 .7 8* * -1 .1 7 -1 .2 4 -0 .4 2 0. 06 6. 43 ** 0. 04 0. 74 Pu sa N as da r × Ja ip ur L on g -1 .5 2 -1 .8 6 -3 8. 78 ** -1 .1 7 -0 .9 3 0. 36 1. 39 -2 1. 89 ** 0. 13 1. 6 Pu sa N as da r × C O -1 0. 31 -0 .3 6 17 .2 2* * 1. 17 -0 .7 1 0. 25 0. 48 -1 3. 85 ** -0 .0 4 -0 .4 9 SE m ± 1. 02 1. 93 40 .0 1 0. 90 2. 19 0. 92 0. 68 13 .4 1 0. 13 1. 68 N ot e: N FF : no de n um be r fo r fi rs t fe m al e flo w er a pp ea ra nc e, D FF : da ys t ak en f or f ir st f em al e flo w er a pp ea ra nc e 56 J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 14(1) : 48-57, 2019 Varalakshmi et al Ta bl e 7. B es t cr os se s ba se d on S C A e ff ec ts a nd p er s e pe rf or m an ce i n ri dg e go ur d   C ro ss SC A Pe r se p er fo rm an ce ( m ea n) D ay s to F lo w er in g Pu sa N ut an × A rk a Su ja t -4 .5 3* * 43 .8 0 V ei n le ng th ( cm ) G A R G -1 × J ai pu r L on g 29 .1 4* * 34 9. 00 Pu sa N as da r × A rk a Su ja t 34 .7 8* * 32 4. 33 G A R G -1 × C O -1 5. 81 ** 28 5. 00 Fr ui t l en gt h (c m ) Pu sa N as da r × A rk a Su m ee t 2. 87 ** 36 .8 7 Pu sa N ut an × A rk a Su ja t 2. 59 * 34 .7 3 Fr ui t n um be r/ pl an t G A R G -1 × A rk a Su m ee t 3. 18 ** 14 .4 0 Fr ui t w ei gh t ( g) Pu sa N as da r × A rk a Su m ee t 29 .3 1* * 26 1. 77 G A R G -1 × C O -1 20 .0 6* * 21 4. 73 Pu sa N ut an × A S um ee t 11 .8 1* * 21 1. 07 G A R G -1 × J ai pu r L on g 25 .5 5* * 19 2. 70 Fr ui t y ie ld ( t/h a) G A R G -1 × C O -1 3. 54 ** 33 .3 3 Pu sa N ut an × A rk a Su ja t 3. 32 ** 24 .0 7 57 (MS Received 19 March 2019, Revised 18 June 2019, Accepted 25 June 2019) J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 14(1) : 48-57, 2019 Heterosis and combining ability in ridge gourd G AR G - 1 x C O - 1 ha d high S C A a long wit h superior performance for the yield (t/ha). These crosses can be directly utilized for improvement of t hes e c ha r a c ter s t hr ough t he exp loita t ion of heterosis or can be exploited for the development of bett er t r a nsgr ess ive s egr ega nt s , sinc e the parents Pusa Nutan, GARG-1, Jaipur Long and CO-1 involved in these crosses also exhibited high G C A. S imil a r r es u lt s wer e r e p or t ed b y Narasannavar et al (2014b), Niyaria and Bhalala (2001), Mole et al (2001), Sarkar et al (2015), Lodam et al (2009) and Tyagi et al (2010). REFERENCES Kantharaj, N. M., 2003, Studies on heterosis and combining a bility in r idge gour d (Luffa acutangula (Roxb. ) L. ). M. Sc. (Hort. ) Thesis, Univ. Agr ic. Sci. , Dha r wa d (India).­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Kempthorne, O., 1957, An introduction to genetic statistics. John Wiley and Sons., Inc., New York, 458-471. Kumar, S., Singh, S.P. and Jaiswal, R. C., 1999. Heterosis over mid and top parent under the line x tester fashion in bottle gourd (Lagenaria siceraria (Molina) Standl.). Vegetable Science 26(1): 30-32. Lodam, V.A., Desai, D.T., Khandelwal, V. and Patil, P.P. 2009. Combining ability analysis in ridge gourd (Luffa acutangula L.). Vegetable Science 36(1): 113-115 Mole, T. J. , Nir ma la Devi S. , Ra ja n, S. a nd Sadha nkuma r, P. G. , 2001. Heter osis and combining a bility in r idge gour d (Luffa acutangula Roxb.). Vegetable Science 28(2): 165-167 Narasannavar, A. R., Gasti, V. D., Shantappa, T., Mulge, R., Allolli, T. B. and Thammaiah, N., 2014. Heterosis studies in ridge gourd [Luffa acutangula (L.) Roxb.]. Karnataka journal of Agricultural Sciences, 27 (1): 47-51 Narasannavar, A., Gasti, V. D., Sridhar, Sheela Malghan, & Kumara B. R. 2014. Gene Action and Combining Ability Analysis for Yield and Yield-Related Traits in Ridge Gourd [Luffa acutangula (L.) Roxb.]. Global Journal of Science Frontier Research (D). 14 (10) Version 1, Online ISSN: 2249-4626 & Print ISSN: 0975-5896 (page 21-26). Niyaria, R. and Bhalala, M. K. 2001. Heterosis and combining ability in ridge gourd. Indian J. Plant Genet. Resour. 14: 101-102. Sarkar, M., Dinesh Kumar Singh, Mani Lohani, Abhijit Kuma r Da s a nd Sa nka lpa Ojha , 2015. Exploitation of heterosis and combining ability for earliness and vegetative traits in ridge gour d [Luffa acutangula (Roxb. ) L. ]. International Journal of Agriculture, Environment and Biotechnology . 8 (1): 153- 161 Tyagi, S. V. S., Pankaj Sharma, Siddiqui, S. A. and Khandelwal, R. C., 2010. Combining ability for yield a nd fr uit qua lity in Luffa. International Journal of Vegetable Science 16:3, 267-277 00 contents.pdf 01. RMS copy 62(17) Gauva.marketing & phl-pinflesh.pdf 02. RMS copy 63(17) Soft wood grafting – A novel and rapid multiplication technique in Coorg mandarin (Citrus reticulata Blanco).pdf 03. RMS copy 25(18) Evaluation of Solanum species and eggplant cultivated varieties for bacterial wilt resistance.pdf 04. RMS 18(18).pdf 05. RMS_II _24_18.pdf 06. RMS copy 26 (18) Metabolite Paper-edited_04.05.2019.pdf 07. RMS copy 1(19).pdf 08. RMS copy 2(19) Revised Heterosi and combining effects ridge gourd 2019.pdf 09. RMS copy 5(19) Digital Repository - Revised.pdf S1. RMS 45(17) Effect of trichomes in cowpea on infestation by spotted pod borer.pdf S2. RMS copy 65(17) performance of Anthurium (Anthurium andreanum Lind) cultivars in hill zone of.pdf S3. RMS copy 2(18) langsat paper revised.pdf S4. RMS 3(19) Mineral content of red skinned potatoes of Eastern India-REVISED.pdf SPH -JHS Coverpage Jun 2019 Issue 14(1).pdf Page 3 Page 4 SPH -JHS Coverpage Jun 2019 Issue 14(1).pdf Page 1 Page 2