DIALLEL CROSS ANALYSIS FOR EARLINESS, YIELD, ITS COMPONENTS AND RESISTANCE TO LATE WILT IN MAIZE

Abstract

A half diallel set of crosses involved eight yellow maize inbred lines were evaluated in normal and artificial infection by late wilt environments at the Agricultural Research and Experiment Center, Faculty of Agriculture, Benha University, Egypt. To estimate combining ability, improve productivity of maize and resistant to late wilt in Egypt. Mean squares of environments, genotypes and its fractions as well as general and specific combining abilities (GCA and SCA) reached the significance level of probability for all traits. High GCA/SCA ratios exceeded than unity were obtained for days to 50% silking and resistance to late wilt% in artificial infection environment and across environments. For remain cases, non-additive type of gene action seemed to be more prevalent. Ten crosses in both and across experiments, gave significant superiority over SC 168. The useful superiority over SC 168 ranged from 10.02 to 33.59 %.Two crosses P 1 xP 2 and P 2 xP 3 in both and across experiments had significant superiority over the best check hybrid Hytech 2055 by 14.68 and 15.49% in the combined analysis. The parental inbred line P 2 exhibited the most accurate general combiner for earliness and grain yield plant-1. The cross P 2 xP 3 was contain most desirable inter and intra-allelic interactions for most traits.

Full text

International Journal of Agricultural
Science and Research (IJASR)
ISSN(P): 2250-0057; ISSN(E): 2321-0087
Vol. 5, Issue 6, Dec 2015, 199-210
© TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.
DIALLEL CROSS ANALYSIS FOR EARLINESS, YIELD, ITS COMPONENTS AND
RESISTANCE TO LATE WILT IN MAIZE
EL-HOSARY A. A. A1 & I. A. I. EL-FIKI2
1Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, Benha University, Egypt
2Department of Plant Pathology, Faculty of Agriculture, Benha University, Egypt
ABSTRACT
A half diallel set of crosses involved eight yellow maize inbred lines were evaluated in normal and artificial
infection by late wilt environments at the Agricultural Research and Experiment Center, Faculty of Agriculture, Benha
University, Egypt. To estimate combining ability, improve productivity of maize and resistant to late wilt in Egypt. Mean
squares of environments, genotypes and its fractions as well as general and specific combining abilities (GCA and SCA)
reached the significance level of probability for all traits. High GCA/SCA ratios exceeded than unity were obtained for
days to 50% silking and resistance to late wilt% in artificial infection environment and across environments. For remain
cases, non-additive type of gene action seemed to be more prevalent. Ten crosses in both and across experiments, gave
significant superiority over SC 168. The useful superiority over SC 168 ranged from 10.02 to 33.59 %.Two crosses P1xP2
and P2xP3 in both and across experiments had significant superiority over the best check hybrid Hytech 2055 by 14.68
and 15.49% in the combined analysis. The parental inbred line P2 exhibited the most accurate general combiner for
earliness and grain yield plant-1. The cross P2xP3 was contain most desirable inter and intra-allelic interactions for most
traits.
KEYWORDS: Combining Ability, Diallel Analysis, Yellow Maize, Resistant to Late Wilt
Received: Nov 05, 2015; Accepted: Nov 14, 2015; Published: Nov 19, 2015; Paper Id.: IJASRDEC201527
INTRODUCTION
Great efforts are devoted to increase maize productivity with a high resistance to disease and pests.
Several diseases attack maize fields. One of the most destructive diseases in maize growing areas in lower and
Upper Egypt is late wilt. It is caused by fungi called Cephalosporium maydis. The degree of lose may be up to
80% in fields. Late wilt disease is wide spread and serious. Therefore, breeding new resistance hybrids is practical,
inexpensive and effective for controlling this disease.
Several methods are available to study the inheritance yield productivity and disease resistance. One of
the common use in this respect is the diallel cross methodology for its power and versatility. Different approaches
to the diallel analysis for estimating certain genetic parameters in terms of gene models have been developed.
Total genetic variation is portioned into the effects of general (GCA) and specific (SCA) combining ability. In this
context, GCA is the average performance of an inbred line in hybrid combinations and as such it is primarily
recognized as a measure of additive gene action. SCA indicates non-additive gene action and it desirable those
instances in which certain hybrid combinations perform relatively desirable than would be expected on the mean
performance of inbred lines involved (Sprague and Tatum 1942).
The objective of the present investigation is to evaluate eight maize inbred lines and their F1 hybrid
Original Article
www.tjprc.org editor@tjprc.org

200 El Hosary A. A. A & I. A. I. El-Fiki
according to general and specific combining ability for earliness, grain yield, its components and resistance to late wilt
disease.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Eight yellow maize inbred lines i.e. M-201(P1), M-202(P2), M-203(P3), M-204 (P4), M-241(P5), M-224(P6), M-
228(P7) and M-524(P8) were sown in two different sowing dates (2nd and 12th May 2013) in order to make half diallel
crosses by hand pollination giving a total of 28 hybrids.
In the 2013 season, two experiments were carried out. The first was a normal trial and the second involved
artificial infection with late wilt disease. The inculum was prepared by growing the fungus (Cephalosporium maydis)
isolates in sterilized milk bottles containing wet cracked grain sorghum kept at room temperature for 45 days. The
infection in the field was made according to Shafshak et al. (1986). Each experiment contained 28 crosses and their
parents along with single crosses SC 168 and Hytech 2055 (check hybrids) were grown in a randomized complete block
design with three replications at the Agricultural Research and Experiment Center, Faculty of Agriculture, Benha
University, Egypt. The sowing of the two experiments was on 6th June 2014. Each plot consisted of two ridges, 70-cm
between ridges. The long of ridge was 6-m. Three kernels per hill were sown in one side of the ridge with 25-cm spacing
between hills. Normal cultural practices were followed for maize growing in the area.
The traits studied were: days to 50% silking, plant height, resistance to late wilt disease% (percent of resistant
plants in each plot following 105 days from sowing) according to Sabet et al. (1961), number of kernels row-1, number of
rows ear-1, 100-kernel weight and grain yield plant-1 adjusted to 15.5% grain moisture. Fifteen guarded plants from each
plot were randomly taken as samples tested for the previous traits except days to 50% silking where; the mean basis of plot
was used.
Statistical analysis was done according to Steel and Torri (1980). Relative superiority of grain yield was
estimated for each cross as the percentage deviation of F1 mean performance from check variety SC Hytech 2055 average
value. Genetic analysis was done as described by Griffing (1956) for method 2 model 1. The combined analysis across the
two experiments was carried out according to (Gomez and Gomez, 1984) whenever, homogeneity of error variance was
found.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The results obtained from parental inbred lines and their F1's for all traits studied in each and across, the two
experiments were first subjected to an ordinary analysis of variance as presented in Table 1. The mean squares due to
environments were significant for all studied traits except for days to 50% silking and No. of rows ear-1. These results are
indicated that the plants generally remained symptomless until flowering stage. Also, the number of rows ear-1 was formed
in the ear before the flowering agrees with the findings of Mostafa et al. (1996), Vivek et al. (2010) and El-Gonemy
(2015). Genotype mean squares were highly significant for all traits studied. Its fractions i.e. parents, crosses and parent vs
crosses reached significant levels in most cases.
Appreciable genotypes by environment interaction were detected for all traits except for No. of rows ear-1 and
100-kernel weight indicating that the genotypes behaved rather differently from normal environment to late wilt infection
environment. For the exceptional traits, insignificant genotype by environment was detected revealing that the genotypes
were suspected to environmental changes by nearly similar magnitudes. Insignificant interactions between parental inbred
Impact Factor (JCC): 4.7987 NAAS Rating: 3.53

Diallel Cross Analysis for Earliness, Yield, Its Components and Resistance to Late Wilt in Maize
201
lines and environments were detected in all traits except plant height. This may reveal the high repeatability of the parental
inbred lines under different environments. Significant interaction between F1 hybrids and environment were detected for
days to 50% silking, No of kernels row-1, late wilt resistance% and grain yield plant-1, indicating that these crosses behave
differently from environment to another. Insignificant interactions occurred between parent vs hybrids and environment for
all studied traits except for grain yield plant-1 revealing that average of heterosis over all crosses was influence by
environmental changes.
Mean Performance and Superiority
The mean performances of tested the eight inbred lines and the 28 hybrids across environments for all traits as
well as grain yield plant-1 and resistance to late wilt % in normal and infection environment and across them and
superiority over both checks (SC 168 and Hytech 2055) are presented in Tables (2 a and b). For days to 50% silking date,
the inbred line No. 2 gave the earliest parents. However, inbred line P7 gave the lateness one. Days to 50% silking for
crosses, ranged from 57.42 for cross P4xP8 to 63.92 for cross P3xP6 while all crosses were earliest than both check hybrids.
For plant height (cm), means ranged from 248.75 for cross P4xP6 to 290.54 for cross P3xP5. The results indicate that most
crosses were shorter than the two check hybrids, for No of rows ear-1, means ranged from 8.9 for P2 to 14.55 for P6, while,
ranged from 11.93 for cross P5xP6 to 15.47 for cross P 1xP6. Most crosses gave higher No. of rows ear-1 compared with the
two check hybrids. The parental inbred lines P7 gave the lowest number of kernels row-1. However, the parent inbred line
P1 gave the highest one for this trait. The two crosses P1xP2 and P1xP3 gave the highest number of kernels row-1 and
significant differences from two check hybrids. However cross P4xP5 gave the lowest ones, but without significant
difference from check hybrids. The inbred lines P1 and P5 recorded heavier 100-kernel weight. On the other hand, the
parental inbred line P7 gave the lowest one for this trait. For the 100-kerenel weight (g) means of crosses ranged from 31.0
for P1xP6 to 45.67 for cross P2xP3. For resistance to late wilt disease, means ranged from 76.67 for cross P6xP8 to 100.00
for P1, P5, P2xP4, P2xP6, P3xP8, P5xP6, P5xP7 and P5xP8 at normal condition, Means ranged from 58.33 for P3 to 100% for
P1, P5, P1xP5, P2xP4, P2xP6, P5xP7 at infection trial. However, means ranged from 68.33 for P 3 to 100% for P1, P5, P1xP5,
P2xP4, P2xP6 and P5xP7 in the combined analysis.
For grain yield plant-1, the two crosses P1xP2 and P2xP3 in both experiments as well as the combined analysis had
significant superiority over the best check hybrid Hytech 2055 by 14.68 and 15.49% in the combined analysis.
The ten crosses of P1xP2, P1xP3, P1xP5, P2xP3, P2xP5, P3xP8, P4xP6, P4xP7, P4xP8 and P5xP7, in both and across
experiments and the combined analysis, gave significant superiority over SC 168 by 33.59, 23.63, 17.62, 34.54, 14.25,
16.23, 11.66, 16.32 and 10.02%, respectively. In addition, the crosses P1xP5 and P5xP7 gave the highest grain yield with
resistance to late wilt. Hence, it could be concluded that these crosses offer possibility for improving grain yield in maize .
These crosses may be released as commercial hybrids after further testing and evaluation. The previous crosses exhibited
significant increase of two or more of traits contributing to grain yield plant-1. The fluctuation of hybrids from normal and
infection environments was detected for most traits.
The mean squares associated with general and specific combining abilities were highly significant in all studied
traits (Table 1). To get an idea about the produced performance of single-cross progeny in each case, the relative size of
general to specific combining ability mean squares may be helpful. High ratios which largely exceeded the unity were
obtained for days to 50% silking in both and across environments and resistance to late wilt% in artificial infection
environment as well as the combined analysis. This indicates that the largest part of the total genetic variability was
www.tjprc.org editor@tjprc.org

202 El Hosary A. A. A & I. A. I. El-Fiki
associated with those traits giving additive and additive by additive gene action. For remain cases, non-additive type of
gene action seemed to be more prevalent. The genetic variance reported by El-Rouby et al. (1973), El-Hosry, (1989) and
El-Hosary et al. (2006) to be mostly due to additive type of gene action for earliness. The non-additive genetic variance
was reported by Singh and Roy (2007), Osman et al. (2012), Zare et al.( 2011), Gouda et al. (2013), Abdel-Moneam et
al.( 2014), El-Ghonemy (2015) and Kamara (2015) to be most prevalent for grain yield and most of its components.
However other researcher Derera et al. (2008), Vivek et al. (2010), Sibiya et al. (2011), Ibrahim (2012) , El-Hosary and
Elgammaal (2013) and El-Hosary (2014) found that the additive play the major role in inheritance of grain yield. Akbar
et al. (2008) and Hefny (2010) reported that both additive and non-additive effects were equal in expression of genetic
variability for the yield and its components traits in maize.
Significant GCA and SCA by environments mean squares were obtained for all studied traits except No. of rows
ear-1 and100-kernel weight, indicating that the magnitude of GCA and SCA varied from one environment to another. These
findings agree to a large extent with those obtained from the ordinary analysis of variance.
Tables (3a and 3b) illustrate the estimates of
i
g
ˆ
effects for individual parental inbred lines at the combined across
environment. High positive values would be of interest under all studied traits except days to 50% silking and plant height
where negative one would be useful from the breeder point of view for earliness and lodging resistance. General
combining ability effects computed herein were significantly different from zero in all traits. Significant negative
i
g
ˆ
effects were detected by parental inbred lines P1, P4 and P8 for days to 50 % silking and P1, P4, P7 and P8 for plant height.
Meanwhile, the significant positive
i
g
ˆ
effects were detected by parental inbred lines P1, P3, P6 and P8 for No of rows ear-1;
P1, P2 and P6 for No of kernel row-1; P2, P3, P5 and P8 for 100- kernel weight; P1 and P5 for resistant to late wilt and P1, P2,
P3 and P6 for grain yield plant-1.
The aforementioned inbred line which had high
i
g
ˆ
effects for grain yield plant-1, also, possessed one or more of
the traits contributing to grain yield. It is of interest for plant breeders to ask whether the GCA for parental inbred lines
agrees with its own performance or where some parents are more potent when crossed than would be expected from their
own performance. The results show positive correlation coefficient between the parental performance and the
corresponding
i
g
ˆ
effects obtained for all studied traits. Therefore, it could be concluded that the high performing hybrids
could be reached except that crossing is carried out between parental inbred lines characterized by high mean
performances. For grain yield plant-1, plant height and 100-kernel weight the insignificant correlation coefficients between
i
g
ˆ
effects and mean performance was detected. This disagreement suggests that hybrids characterized by these traits
could be expected by crossing between inbred lines with a low performance for these characters. Also, it could be
concluded that the GCA variance had been with dominance with effects to a certain degree (Jinks 1955). The parental
inbred line P2 exhibited the most accurate general combiner for earliness and grain yield plant-1.
The parental inbred lines combinations specific combining ability
ij
S
^
effects for all studied traits across
environments are presented in Tables (4 a-b). twenty two, zero, twenty, twenty, fifteen, nine and twenty two crosses give
desirable
ij
S
^
effects for days to 50% silking, plant height, no of rows ear-1, No of kernels row, 100- kernel weight, resistant
to late wilt% and grain yield plant-1, respectively. The most desirable inter and intra-allelic interactions were represented;
Impact Factor (JCC): 4.7987 NAAS Rating: 3.53

Diallel Cross Analysis for Earliness, Yield, Its Components and Resistance to Late Wilt in Maize
203
by P4xP7, P4xP8, P5xP6, P5xP8, P6xP7 and P7xP8 for days to 50% silking, P3xP8 and P5xP7 for No of rows ear-1, P1xP3 for
No of kernels row-1, P2xP3 for 100-kerenl weight, P2xP3, P2xP4, P2xP6 and P3xP6 for resistant to late wilt% and P1xP2 and
P2xP3 for grain yield plant-1. Such combinations may be of interest in breeding programs aimed at excellent hybrids since
they surpassed the best performing for these traits or produce new inbred lines as most combinations involved at least one
good combiner parent or produced synthetic varieties.
CONCLUSIONS
The previous results could be showed that the parental inbred line P1was the good general combiner for earliness,
resistant to late wilt and grain yield plant-1. The crosses P1xP2 and P2xP3 had high productivity and these crosses were
superior over the check hybrids. However, the cross P2xP3 was contain most desirable inter and intra-allelic interactions
for most traits.
REFERENCES
1. Abdel-Moneam, M.A., Sultan, M.S., Salama, S.M.G. & El Oraby, A.M. (2014). Evaluation of combining ability and heterosis
for yield and its components traits of five maize inbreds under normal and stress nitrogen fertilization. Asian J. Crop Sci., 6:
142-149.
2. Akbar, M., Saleem, M., Muhammad, F., Ashraf, M.K. & Ahmed, R.A. (2008). Combining ability analysis in maize under
normal and high temperature conditions. J. Agric. Res., 64: 27-38.
3. Derera, J., Tongoona, P., Pixly, K.V., Vivek, B., Laing, M.D. & Van Rij N.C. (2008). Gene action controlling gray leaf spot
resistance in southern African maize germplasm. Crop Sci. 48: 93-98.
4. El-Gonemy, M.A.M. (2015). Combining Ability of Seven New White Maize Inbred Lines for Yield and Some Agronomic Traits.
Egyptian Journal of Plant Breeding 19 (1): 15 – 24.
5. El-Hosary, A.A.A. & Elgammaal, A.A. (2013). Combining ability, heterosis and assessing genetic diversity using rapd marker
in maize. Minufiya J. Agric. Res. 38 (1): 109-125
6. El-Hosary, A.A.A. (2014). Relative values of three different testers in evaluating combining ability of new maize inbred lines.
International J. of Plant Breeding and genetics 5(2): 57-65.
7. El-Hosary, A.A. (1989). Heterosis and combining ability of six inbred lines of maize in diallel crosses over two years. Egypt. J.
Agron. 14(1-2): 47-58
8. El-Hosary, A.A., El-Badawy, M.EL.M. & Abdel-Tawab, Y.M. (2006). Genetic distance of inbred lines and prediction of maize
single-cross performance using RAPD and SSR markers. Egypt. J. Genet. Cytol. 35: 209-224.
9. El-Rouby, M. M., Koraiem, Y.S. and Nawar, A.A. (1973). Estimation of genetic variance and its components in maize under
stress and non-stress environment. Egypt. J. Genet. Cyto., 2: 10-19.
10. Gomez, K.N. & Gomez, A.A. (1984). Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. John.Wiley and Sons. Inc., New York,
2nd ed.
11. Gouda, R.K., Kage, U., Lohithaswa, H.C., Shekara, B.G. and Shobha, D. (2013). Combining ability studies in maize (Zea
mays L.) Mol. Plant Breed., 3: 116-127.
12. Griffing, B. (1956). Concept of general and specific combining ability in relation to diallel crossing systems. Aus. J. of Biol.
Sci. 9: 463-493.
www.tjprc.org editor@tjprc.org

204 El Hosary A. A. A & I. A. I. El-Fiki
13. Hefny, M. (2010). Genetic Control of Flowering Traits, Yield and its Components in Maize (Zea mays L.) at Different Sowing
Dates. Asian J. Crop Sci., 2: 236-249.
14. Ibrahim, Kh.A.M. (2012). Combining analysis of some yellow (Zea mays L.) inbreds for grain yield and other traits. Egypt J.
Agric. Res. 90 (4): 33-46.
15. Kamara M. Mohamed (2015). Diallel analysis of some yellow maize inbred lines under low and normal nitrogen levels.
International J. of Plant Breeding and genetics 9(2): 32-43.
16. Mostafa, M.A., Abd El-Aziz, A.A., Mahgoub, G.M.A. & El-Sherbieny, H.Y.S. (1996). Diallel analysis of grain yield and
natural resistance to late wilt disease in newly developed inbred lines of maize. Bull. Fac. Agric., Cairo Univ. 47: 393- 404.
17. Osman,M.M.A., Ibrahim Kh.A.M. & El-Ghonemy, M.A.M. (2012). Diallel analysis of grain yield and some other traits in
yellow maize (Zea mays L.) inbred lines. Assuit J. Agric. Sci. 43: 16-26.
18. Sabel, K.A., Samra, A.S. & Hingurani, I.K. (1961). Stalk and root rot of maize in U.A.R. F.A.O. plant protect. Bull. 9:
121-125.
19. Shafshak, S.E., Shokr, El-Sayed A., El-Hosary, A.A. & Sedhom, S.A. (1986). Breeding studies on maize I-late wilt disease
resistance. Ann. Agric., Sci. Moshtohor 24(3): 1321-1333.
20. Sibiya, J., Tongoona, P., Derera, J. & Van Rij, N. (2011). Genetic analysis and genotype x environment (GxE) for grey leaf
spot disease resistance in elite African maize (Zea mays L.) germplasm. Euphytica, 179(1):312-325.
21. Singh, P.K. & Roy, A.K. (2007). Diallel analysis of inbred lines in maize (Zea mays L.). Intl. J. Agric. Sci. 3(1):213-216.
22. Sprague, G.F. & Tatum, L.A. (1942). General V.S. specific combining ability in single crosses of corn. J. Am. Soc. Agron.
34: 923-932.
23. Steel, R.G. & Torrie, J.H. (1980). Principles and Procedures of Statistics. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, Toronto,
London.
24. Vivek, B.S., Odongo, O., Njuguna, J. , Imanywoha, J., Bigirwa, G., Diallo, A. & Pixley, K. (2010). Diallel analysis of grain
yield and resistance to seven diseases of 12 African maize (Zea mays L.) inbred lines. Euphytica 172: 329-340.
25. Zare, M., Choukan, R., Heravan, E.M., Bihamta, M.R. and Ordookani, K. (2011). Gene action of some agronomic traits in
corn (Zea mays L.) Using diallel cross analysis. Afr. J. Agric. Res., 6: 693-703.
Impact Factor (JCC): 4.7987 NAAS Rating: 3.53

Diallel Cross Analysis for Earliness, Yield, Its Components and Resistance to Late Wilt in Maize
205
APPENDICES
Table 1: Mean of squares from ordinary analysis for studied traits in normal environment, artificial infection by
late wilt disease and across the previous environments.
SOV
df
Mean squares
Days to
50%
silking
Plant
height
No of
Rows ear-1
No of
kernels row-1
100-kernel
kernel weight
Resistant
to late wilt%
Grain
yield plant-1
Normal environment
Replication
2
4.97*
150.42*
0.79
0.56
1.00
25.93
38.03**
Genotype (G)
35
56.17**
4772.73**
9.33**
110.09**
54.42**
157.06**
7718.44
Parent (P)
7
43.41**
3757.87**
9.41**
108.43**
13.69**
178.57**
3798.95**
Crosses (F1)
27
10.80**
505.19**
2.88**
31.93**
28.82**
157.18**
2636.92**
P vs. F1
1
1370.48**
127100.42**
183.06**
2231.86**
1030.92**
3.24
172355.99**
Error
70
1.13
46.81
0.47
2.65
3.87
33.54
79.08
GCA
7
19.47**
215.26**
1.68**
21.73**
9.57**
41.09**
650.93**
SCA
28
18.54**
1934.82**
3.47**
40.44**
20.28**
55.17**
3053.28**
Error
70
0.38
15.60
0.16
0.88
1.29
11.18
26.36
GCA/SCA
-
1.05
0.11
0.48
0.54
0.47
0.74
0.21
Artificial infection environment by late wilt disease
Replication
2
5.58**
94.02
1.74*
3.56
17.07*
31.84
82.12
Genotype (G)
35
55.16**
5469.70**
10.43**
97.43**
58.75**
344.29**
8779.67**
Parent (P)
7
28.06**
955.85**
11.13**
78.14**
23.23**
536.36**
2833.69**
Crosses (F1)
27
18.71**
446.66**
2.59**
31.64**
30.34**
304.35**
2564.60**
P vs. F1
1
1229.13**
172688.63**
217.00**
2008.83**
1074.47**
78.26
218208.26**
Error
70
0.72
94.49
0.38
1.55
3.53
31.27
75.67
GCA
7
21.39**
325.84**
1.89**
16.45**
10.09**
191.59**
425.35**
SCA
28
17.64**
2197.58**
3.87**
36.48**
21.96**
95.56**
3551.86**
Error
70
0.24
31.50
0.13
0.52
1.18
10.42
25.22
GCA/SCA
-
1.21
0.15
0.49
0.45
0.46
2.00
0.12
Combined across environment
Environment (E)
1
0.49
11022.45**
0.07
10.67**
13.73**
2660.02**
289.14**
Rep/E
4
5.28**
122.22
1.27*
2.06
9.04*
28.88
60.08
Genotype (G)
35
108.92**
9991.20**
19.53**
199.86**
110.95**
435.71**
16330.73**
Parent (P)
7
69.79**
3861.48**
20.44**
184.13**
33.57**
656.27**
6574.85**
Crosses (F1)
27
26.89**
911.69**
5.23**
54.38**
57.15**
392.57**
5049.55**
P vs. F1
1
2597.69**
298045.79**
399.33**
4237.75**
2105.17**
56.68
389213.82**
G x E
35
2.42**
251.23**
0.23
7.66**
2.23
65.64**
167.37**
P x E
7
1.68
852.24**
0.10
2.44
3.35
58.65
57.78
F1 x E
27
2.63**
40.15**
0.24
9.19**
2.02
68.96**
151.97**
P vs. F1 x E
1
1.92
1743.26**
0.72
2.93
0.23
24.83
1350.43**
Error
140
0.93
70.65
0.43
2.10
3.70
32.41
77.38
GCA
7
39.42**
450.75**
3.52**
35.81**
19.06**
197.48**
1036.69**
SCA
28
35.53**
4050.31**
7.26**
74.32**
41.46**
132.18**
6545.30**
GCA x E
7
1.43**
90.35**
0.05
2.37**
0.60
35.20**
39.59
SCA x E
28
0.65**
82.09**
0.08
2.60**
0.78
18.55*
59.84**
Error
140
0.31
23.55
0.14
0.70
1.23
10.80
25.79
GCA/SCA
--
1.11
0.11
0.48
0.48
0.46
1.49
0.16
* and ** indicate p< 0.05 and p< 0.01, respectively.
www.tjprc.org editor@tjprc.org

206 El Hosary A. A. A & I. A. I. El-Fiki
Table 2a: Mean performance of all genotypes for earliness, plant height, no of rows ear-1, no of kernels row-1 and
100-kernel weight at the combined analysis across the studied environments and resistance of genotypes to
late wilt in both and across environments
Genotype
Days to
50%
Silking
Plant
Height
No of
Rows
No of
Kernels
Row
-1
100-
Kernel
Weight
Resistance to Late Wilt %
N.
Inf.
Comb.
Ear-1
P
1
72.00
156.25
11.45
35.85
34.50
100.00
100.00
100.00
P
2
63.71
210.33
8.90
27.13
30.17
93.33
88.33
90.83
P
3
65.83
203.17
9.48
18.63
30.50
78.33
58.33
68.33
P
4
66.58
207.21
11.03
30.28
29.83
96.67
90.00
93.33
P
5
72.42
144.33
10.37
26.05
34.33
100.00
100.00
100.00
P
6
70.83
186.46
14.55
35.00
29.83
96.67
91.67
94.17
P
7
72.63
165.63
11.53
25.28
28.33
96.67
91.67
94.17
P
8
68.38
165.04
9.00
28.13
28.67
85.00
80.67
82.83
P
1
xP
2
59.50
278.46
15.00
46.77
39.00
80.00
75.00
77.50
P
1
xP
3
62.08
265.21
14.42
47.04
39.00
93.33
91.67
92.50
P
1
xP
4
60.38
259.63
14.77
38.33
38.17
98.33
83.33
90.83
P
1
xP
5
62.42
289.75
15.25
39.92
39.33
100.00
100.00
100.00
P
1
xP
6
62.63
272.29
15.47
34.73
31.00
98.33
90.00
94.17
P
1
xP
7
63.58
269.67
12.73
36.23
33.50
96.67
91.67
94.17
P
1
xP
8
63.00
266.29
13.23
38.83
37.67
96.67
91.67
94.17
P
2
xP
3
58.21
276.75
14.80
41.62
45.67
98.33
90.00
94.17
P
2
xP
4
56.63
250.46
13.93
38.73
36.67
100.00
100.00
100.00
P
2
xP
5
61.50
290.08
14.62
41.17
38.67
83.33
73.33
78.33
P
2
xP
6
59.00
258.88
15.30
39.07
35.67
100.00
100.00
100.00
P
2
xP
7
57.71
254.79
14.82
35.53
37.17
93.33
86.67
90.00
P
2
xP
8
57.04
267.75
13.57
37.67
42.00
93.33
83.33
88.33
P
3
xP
4
60.88
265.54
13.12
37.93
41.33
90.00
75.00
82.50
P
3
xP
5
62.29
290.54
12.75
38.97
39.00
86.67
83.33
85.00
P
3
xP
6
63.92
262.25
15.03
37.47
38.17
91.67
91.67
91.67
P
3
xP
7
62.71
261.17
13.63
37.67
39.00
93.33
75.00
84.17
P
3
xP
8
63.42
284.96
14.53
35.50
42.21
100.00
75.00
87.50
P
4
xP
5
62.63
275.25
14.17
33.83
31.67
98.33
91.67
95.00
P
4
xP
6
60.83
248.75
14.17
38.60
40.00
88.33
75.00
81.67
P
4
xP
7
58.38
252.21
14.12
40.87
37.67
83.33
66.67
75.00
P
4
xP
8
57.42
256.00
13.67
40.33
40.83
83.33
83.33
83.33
P
5
xP
6
61.38
283.00
11.93
41.73
40.00
100.00
93.33
96.67
P
5
xP
7
61.83
279.75
15.33
39.37
37.67
100.00
100.00
100.00
P
5
xP
8
59.67
281.00
13.20
37.83
37.47
100.00
96.67
98.33
P
6
xP
7
60.96
269.42
13.07
38.87
34.67
81.67
66.67
74.17
P
6
xP
8
60.21
268.08
13.10
39.81
38.67
76.67
78.33
77.50
P
7
xP
8
59.58
258.33
13.97
36.18
40.00
96.67
86.67
91.67
SC 168
65.00
290.00
12.00
32.40
34.00
97.00
86.00
91.50
SC Hytech 2055
69.00
302.00
12.13
43.20
48.33
98.00
93.00
95.50
mean of parent
69.05
179.80
10.79
28.30
30.77
93.33
87.58
90.46
mean of cross
60.71
269.15
14.06
38.95
38.28
93.23
85.86
89.54
mean of Genotype
62.79
251.75
13.27
36.65
36.85
93.25
86.18
89.71
L.S.D 5%
1.54
13.45
1.05
2.32
3.08
9.41
9.08
9.11
L.S.D 1%
2.02
17.64
1.37
3.04
4.04
12.48
12.04
11.95
N., Inf. and Comb. refer to normal, artificial infection by late wilt disease and combined analysis across the two
environments, respectively.
Impact Factor (JCC): 4.7987 NAAS Rating: 3.53

Diallel Cross Analysis for Earliness, Yield, Its Components and Resistance to Late Wilt in Maize
207
Table 2b: Mean performance of all genotypes for grain yield plant-1 and the yield superiority over SC 168 and SC
Hytech 2055 at normal environment (n), infection by late wilt (inf.) and across the previous environments
Genotype
Grain Yield Plant
-1
Relative Superiority (%)
N
Inf.
C.
P
1
140
132.33
136.17
P
2
77.33
71.33
74.33
P
3
53
50.67
51.83
P
4
98.67
89
93.83
P
5
91.67
89
90.33
P
6
164.33
143.33
153.83
P
7
81.67
78.33
80
Over Single Cross 168
Over Single Cross Hytech 2055
P
8
102.33
98.67
100.5
N
Inf.
Comb.
N
Inf.
Comb.
P
1
xP
2
260
255.67
257.83
33.33**
33.86**
33.59**
16.42**
12.96**
14.68**
P
1
xP
3
236.9
240.33
238.62
21.49**
25.83**
23.63**
6.07
6.19
6.13
P
1
xP
4
203
209.67
206.33
4.10
9.77*
6.91
-9.10**
-7.36*
-8.23**
P
1
xP
5
221.67
232.33
227
13.68**
21.64**
17.62**
-0.75
2.65
0.96
P
1
xP
6
163
158.67
160.83
-16.41**
-16.93**
-16.67**
-27.01**
-29.90**
-28.47**
P
1
xP
7
137.33
149
143.17
-29.57**
-21.99**
-25.82**
-38.51**
-34.17**
-36.32**
P1xP8
166.33
178.67
172.5
-14.70**
-6.46
-10.62**
-25.52**
-21.06**
-23.28**
P
2
xP
3
253.33
266
259.67
29.91**
39.27**
34.54**
13.43**
17.53**
15.49**
P
2
xP
4
199.33
190.67
195
2.22
-0.17
1.04
-10.75**
-15.76**
-13.27**
P
2
xP
5
220
221
220.5
12.82**
15.71**
14.25**
-1.49
-2.36
-1.93
P
2
xP
6
206.67
208
207.33
5.98
8.90*
7.43*
-7.46*
-8.10*
-7.78*
P
2
xP
7
180.6
188
184.3
-7.38
-1.57
-4.51
-19.13**
-16.94**
-18.03**
P
2
xP
8
214
195
204.5
9.74*
2.09
5.96
-4.18
-13.84**
-9.04**
P
3
xP
4
194
193.33
193.67
-0.51
1.22
0.35
-13.13**
-14.58**
-13.86**
P
3
xP
5
187
185.67
186.33
-4.1
-2.79
-3.45
-16.27**
-17.97**
-17.12**
P
3
xP
6
209
208
208.5
7.18
8.90*
8.03*
-6.42
-8.10*
-7.26*
P
3
xP
7
185.67
198
191.83
-4.79
3.66
-0.6
-16.87**
-12.52**
-14.68**
P
3
xP
8
215
233.67
224.33
10.26**
22.34**
16.23**
-3.73
3.24
-0.22
P
4
xP
5
152.67
143.67
148.17
-21.71**
-24.78**
-23.23**
-31.64**
-36.52**
-34.10**
P
4
xP
6
199.33
218.33
208.83
2.22
14.31**
8.20*
-10.75**
-3.53
-7.12*
P
4
xP
7
218.33
212.67
215.5
11.97**
11.34**
11.66**
-2.24
-6.04
-4.15
P
4
xP
8
222
227
224.5
13.85**
18.85**
16.32**
-0.6
0.29
-0.15
P
5
xP
6
181.2
194.33
187.77
-7.08
1.75
-2.71
-18.87**
-14.14**
-16.49**
P
5
xP
7
210
214.67
212.33
7.69*
12.39**
10.02**
-5.97
-5.15
-5.56
P
5
xP
8
191.67
190.67
191.17
-1.71
-0.17
-0.95
-14.18**
-15.76**
-14.97**
P
6
xP
7
157
167.67
162.33
-19.49**
-12.22**
-15.89**
-29.70**
-25.92**
-27.80**
P
6
xP
8
162
185
173.5
-16.92**
-3.14
-10.10**
-27.46**
-18.26**
-22.83**
P
7
xP
8
175
196
185.5
-10.26**
2.62
-3.89
-21.64**
-13.40**
-17.49**
SC 168
195
191
193
SC Hytech 2055
223.33
226.33
224.83
mean of parent
101.13
94.08
97.6
mean of cross
197.22
202.2
199.71
mean of
177.61
179.78
178.7
Genotype
L.S.D 5%
14.44
14.13
14.08
L.S.D 1%
19.15
18.74
18.46
*and ** indicate p< 0.05 and p< 0.01, respectively. N., Inf. and Comb. refer to normal, artificial infection by late wilt
disease and combined analysis across the two environments, respectively.
www.tjprc.org editor@tjprc.org

208 El Hosary A. A. A & I. A. I. El-Fiki
Table 3a: GCA effects (
i
g
ˆ
) of the studied parental inbred lines for earliness, plant height, no of rows ear-1 and
no of kernels row-1 and 100-kernel weight across the two environments
Parents
Days to
Plant
No of Rows
No of Kernels
100-Kernel
50% Silking
Height
Ear
-1
Row
-1
Weight
P
1
1.46**
-2.99**
0.38**
2.43**
-0.28*
P
2
-2.60**
5.42**
-0.02
0.56**
0.57**
P
3
0.21**
6.91**
-0.28**
-1.58**
1.59**
P
4
-1.27**
-2.14**
0.00
0.00
-0.35**
P
5
1.35**
3.44**
-0.20**
-0.43**
0.30*
P
6
0.76**
-0.81
0.72**
1.10**
-1.17**
P
7
0.70**
-6.71**
0.07
-1.40**
-1.32**
P
8
-0.59**
-3.12**
-0.67**
-0.68**
0.67**
L.S.D(0.05) gi
0.13
1.12
0.09
0.19
0.26
L.S.D(0.01) gi
0.17
1.47
0.11
0.25
0.34
L.S.D(0.05) gi-gj
0.24
2.13
0.17
0.37
0.49
L.S.D(0.01) gi-gj
0.32
2.79
0.22
0.48
0.64
r
0.88**
0.42
0.86**
0.88**
0.15
*and ** indicate p< 0.05 and p< 0.01, respectively. r indicate the correlation coefficient between
i
g
ˆ
effects for
parents and its mean performance
Table 3b: GCA effects
i
g
ˆ
of the studied parental inbred lines for resistant to late wilt% and grain yield
plant
-1
at both and across the studied environments
Parents
Resistant to Late Wilt %
Grain Yield Plant
-1
N
Inf.
Comb.
N
Inf.
Comb.
P
1
2.62**
4.94**
3.78**
8.55**
8.54**
8.54**
P
2
-0.21
1.11
0.45
10.58**
6.34**
8.46**
P
3
-2.71**
-7.56**
-5.13**
0.41
2.28
1.34*
P
4
-0.21
-1.89
-1.05**
0.32
-3.03*
-1.35*
P
5
3.12**
6.44**
4.78**
-3.52*
-4.32**
-3.92**
P
6
-0.71
0.44
-0.13
2.41
2.31
2.36**
P
7
0.12
-1.73
-0.80*
-15.55**
-12.09**
-13.82**
P
8
-2.04*
-1.76
-1.90**
-3.21*
-0.02
-1.62**
L.S.D(0.05) gi
1.97
1.90
0.76
3.02
2.96
1.17
L.S.D(0.01) gi
2.61
2.52
1.00
4.01
3.92
1.54
L.S.D(0.05) gi-gj
2.98
2.87
1.44
4.57
4.47
2.23
L.S.D(0.01) gi-gj
3.95
3.81
1.89
6.06
5.93
2.92
r
0.85**
0.89**
0.88**
0.27
0.30
0.29
* and ** indicate p< 0.05 and p< 0.01, respectively. r indicate the correlation coefficient between (
i
g
ˆ
) effects
for parents and its mean performance. N., Inf. and Comb. refer to normal, artificial i nfection by late wilt
disease and combined analysis across the two environments, respectively.
Impact Factor (JCC): 4.7987 NAAS Rating: 3.53

Diallel Cross Analysis for Earliness, Yield, Its Components and Resistance to Late Wilt in Maize
209
Table 4a: SCA effects
ij
S
^
of the studied diallel crosses for earliness, plant height, no of rows ear -1 and no of
kernels row-1 and 100-kernel weight across the two environments
Days to
Plant
No of
No of
100-
Crosses
50%
Rows
Kernels
Kernel
Height
Silking
Ear-1
Row
-1
Weight
P
1
xP
2
-1.91**
26.73**
1.31**
7.20**
2.11**
P
1
xP
3
-2.14**
11.99**
0.98**
9.61**
1.08
P
1
xP
4
-2.37**
15.46**
1.06**
-0.68
2.19**
P
1
xP
5
-2.95**
40.00**
1.74**
1.34*
2.71**
P
1
xP
6
-2.14**
26.79**
1.04**
-5.38**
-4.16**
P
1
xP
7
-1.13**
30.07**
-1.05**
-1.38**
-1.51*
P
1
xP
8
-0.42
23.10**
0.20
0.50
0.67
P
2
xP
3
-1.96**
15.13**
1.76**
6.06**
6.90**
P
2
xP
4
-2.06**
-2.11
0.l62*
1.60**
-0.16
P
2
xP
5
0.19
31.93**
1.50**
4.46**
1.19
P
2
xP
6
-1.71**
4.97
1.27**
0.82
-0.34
P
2
xP
7
-2.94**
6.79*
1.43**
-0.21
1.31
P
2
xP
8
-2.32**
16.15**
0.92**
1.21*
4.15**
P
3
xP
4
-0.62
11.48**
0.06
2.93**
3.48**
P
3
xP
5
-1.83**
30.90**
-0.11
4.40**
0.50
P
3
xP
6
0.39
6.85*
1.26**
1.36*
1.13
P
3
xP
7
-0.76*
11.67**
0.50*
4.06**
2.12**
P
3
xP
8
1.24**
31.87**
2.15**
1.18*
3.34**
P
4
xP
5
-0.01
24.66**
1.04**
-2.31**
-4.89**
P
4
xP
6
-1.21**
2.40
0.12
0.92
4.91**
P
4
xP
7
-3.61**
11.76**
0.71**
5.68**
2.72**
P
4
xP
8
-3.27**
11.96**
1.01**
4.44**
3.90**
P
5
xP
6
-3.29**
31.07**
-1.92**
4.48**
4.26**
P
5
xP
7
-2.77**
33.72**
2.13**
4.61**
2.08**
P
5
xP
8
-3.65**
31.38**
0.74**
2.37**
-0.11
P
6
xP
7
-3.05**
27.64**
-1.06**
2.58**
0.54
P
6
xP
8
-2.51**
22.71**
-0.28
2.80**
2.55**
P
7
xP
8
-3.08**
18.86**
1.23**
1.68**
4.04**
LSD5%(sij)
0.70
6.10
0.47
1.05
1.40
LSD1%(sij)
0.92
8.00
0.62
1.38
1.83
LSD5%(sij-sik)
1.03
9.02
0.70
1.56
2.07
LSD1%(sij-sik)
1.35
11.83
0.92
2.04
2.71
LSD5%(sij-skl)
0.34
3.01
0.23
0.52
0.69
LSD1%(sij-skl)
0.45
3.94
0.31
0.68
0.90
* and ** indicate p< 0.05 and p< 0.01, respectively.
www.tjprc.org editor@tjprc.org

210
El Hosary A. A. A & I. A. I. El -Fiki
Table 4b: SCA effects (
ij
S
^
) of the studied diallel crosses for resistance to late wilt disease and grain yield
plant-1 in both and across the studied environments
Crosses
Resistance to Late Wilt%
Grain Yield Plant
-1
N
inf.
N
inf.
N
inf.
P
1
xP
2
-15.43**
-17.04**
-16.23**
65.01**
62.61**
63.81**
P
1
xP
3
0.41
8.29**
4.35*
52.07**
51.34**
51.71**
P
1
xP
4
2.91
-5.71
-1.40
18.27**
25.97**
22.12**
P
1
xP
5
1.24
2.63
1.93
40.78**
49.94**
45.36**
P
1
xP
6
3.41
-1.37
1.02
-23.82**
-30.36**
-27.09**
P
1
xP
7
0.91
2.46
1.68
-31.53**
-25.63**
-28.58**
P
1
xP
8
3.07
2.49
2.78
-14.87**
-8.03
-11.45**
P
2
xP
3
8.24**
10.46**
9.35**
66.47**
79.21**
72.84**
P
2
xP
4
7.41*
14.79**
11.10**
12.56**
9.17*
10.87**
P
2
xP
5
-12.59**
-20.21**
-16.40**
37.08**
40.81**
38.94**
P
2
xP
6
7.91*
12.46**
10.18**
17.81**
21.17**
19.49**
P
2
xP
7
0.41
1.29
0.85
9.70*
15.57**
12.64**
P
2
xP
8
2.57
-2.01
0.28
30.76**
10.51*
20.64**
P
3
xP
4
-0.09
-1.54
-0.82
17.40**
15.91**
16.65**
P
3
xP
5
-6.76*
-1.54
-4.15*
14.25**
9.54*
11.89**
P
3
xP
6
2.07
12.79**
7.43**
30.31**
25.24**
27.78**
P
3
xP
7
2.91
-1.71
0.60
24.94**
29.64**
27.29**
P
3
xP
8
11.74**
-1.67
5.03*
41.93**
53.24**
47.59**
P
4
xP
5
2.41
1.13
1.77
-20.00**
-27.16**
-23.58**
P
4
xP
6
-3.76
-9.54**
-6.65**
20.74**
40.87**
30.81**
P
4
xP
7
-9.59**
-15.71**
-12.65**
57.70**
49.61**
53.65**
P
4
xP
8
-7.43*
0.99
-3.22
49.02**
51.87**
50.45**
P
5
xP
6
4.57
0.46
2.52
6.45
18.17**
12.31**
P
5
xP
7
3.74
9.29**
6.52**
53.21**
52.91**
53.06**
P
5
xP
8
5.91
5.99*
5.95**
22.54**
16.84**
19.69**
P
6
xP
7
-10.76**
-18.04**
-14.40**
-5.72
-0.73
-3.22
P
6
xP
8
-13.59**
-6.34*
-9.97**
-13.06**
4.54
-4.26
P
7
xP
8
5.57
4.16
4.87*
17.90**
29.94**
23.92**
LSD5%(sij)
6.03
5.83
4.13
9.26
9.06
6.38
LSD1%(sij)
8.00
7.73
5.42
12.29
12.02
8.37
LSD5%(sij-sik)
8.93
8.62
6.11
13.71
13.41
9.44
LSD1%(sij-sik)
11.84
11.44
8.01
18.18
17.79
12.38
LSD5%(sij-skl)
8.42
8.13
2.04
12.92
12.64
3.15
LSD1%(sij-skl)
11.17
10.78
2.67
17.14
16.77
4.13
*and ** indicate p< 0.05 and p< 0.01, respectively. N., Inf. and Comb. refer to normal, infection by late wilt
disease and combined analysis across the two environments, respectively.
Impact Factor (JCC): 4.7987 NAAS Rating: 3.53