Egypt. J. Plant Breed.

20(2):295 316 (2016)

HETEROSIS IN HYBRIDS
BETWEEN SWEET AND FIELD TYPES OF CORN
B.K. Wahba, H.E.M. Zaki, Y.M.M. Moustafa,
Y.Y. Abdel Ati and S.H. Gadelhak
Horticulture Dept., Faculty of Agri., Minia Univ., El-Minia, Egypt

ABSTRACT
In this study, thirty hybrids were produced between field corn (six inbreds) and
sweet corn (five inbreds) types. The parental lines, crosses and one check hybrid cultivar
were evaluated under El-Minia (Middle Egypt) growing conditions. Field corn inbreds
were developed by selfing from open-pollinated plants of yellow Yemen's landraces.
Results showed significant variations among the obtained hybrids and their parental
lines for all studied traits. However, the coefficient of variations for all traits ranged from
4.94%, for siliking date to 30.80% for dehusked ear weight. Furthermore, mid-parent
and better-parent and superiority over check cultivar were observed among the tested
crosses. Out of the 30 single crosses, five hybrids exhibited significant longer ears than
most of the other hybrids, but most of these new hybrids can be used to extend growing
the sweet corn in the Middle Egypt region and similar areas.
Key Words: Zea mays var. rugosa, Field-sweet corn hybrids, Single cross, Coefficient of
variations.

INTRODUCTION
Hybrid corn technology has contributed significantly toward food
security, environmental protection, and employment opportunities all over
the world (Reif et al 2005).This technology has been developed and
introduced to farmers in Egypt since 1935 (Al-Naggar 1998). Green cobs of
field corn are roasted and eaten by Egyptian people with great interest.
Thus, immediate importance and prospects of sweet corn for this purpose is
apparent. Fresh sweet corn is increasingly in high demand not only in
national markets (El-Seidy 2001) but also in global markets as well (Kaukis
and Davis 1986). It also serves as a raw material for enhancing large
number of industrial products such as starch syrub, dextrose and dextrin
etc. (Dagla et al 2014).
The most important sweet corn breeding targets under Egyptian
conditions are high yield, early maturity and sweetness of kernels (Shaban
2003). Increasing sweet corn cultivation area mainly depends on the
availability of high yielding cultivars and the increase of awareness among
the growers, traders and consumers.
Importance of suitable field corn genotypes in breeding sweet corn
better adapted to tropical and sub-tropical conditions was documented by
Tracy (1990) who proposed the term "field-sweet corn hybrids". Increased
levels of certain pigments and other nutrients in sweet corn genotypes
would add value to this crop (Egesel et al 2003). However, appropriate field
corn genotypes for improving the performance of sweet corn were varied.
On the other hand, successful sweet corn cultivars have been developed
using this strategy (Davis et al 1988, Revilla et al 2000a and Tracy, 2001).

Wahba et al (2015) evaluated the genetic parameters in two different sweetfield corn crosses using the generation mean analysis for total soluble solids
(TSS) and found sweet corn cultivars had the highest TSS compared with
field corn inbreds. However, the F1 means in both crosses were higher than
mid parents values, but did not exceed those of their high parent suggesting
partial dominance.
The overall objectives of this study are to estimate the magnitude of
heterosis as well as to screen the performance of new sweet-field corn
hybrids for the purpose of identifying high heterotic parental combination,
in order to improve the agronomic and nutritional characteristics of fieldsweet corn hybrids under Minia (Middle Egypt) conditions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Plant materials
Six field corn (Zea mays var. indurata) and five sweet corn (Zea
mays L. var. rugosa Bonaf) inbreds were used as the parental inbreds of
field-sweet hybrids in this study. All field corn inbreds were developed
from selfing open-pollinated plants of yellow Yemen's landraces collected
by S. H. Gadelhak for five successive generations, and maintained at the
Horticulture Department Research Farm, Faculty of Agriculture, Minia
University, El-Minia, Egypt. The five sweet corn inbreds were developed by
Wahba (2009) and maintained by sibbing mating system. Each inbreds was
represented by ten plants, which were used for intercrossing and selfing.
These materials gave a total of eleven parental inbreds and 30 hybrids.
Producing self and F1 hybrid seeds were done by bagging hand pollination
in 2011 season. Harvesting was done at the full mature stage and the grainmoisture were adjusted at 15.5% and seeds were stored in refrigerator at 5
o
C+1.
Field evaluation
Grains of each parental genotype and each of the 30 hybrids which
resulted from the summer season of 2011 as well as the check F1 hybrid
cultivar, ABCO 232Y, Abbott & Cobb company seed company, Feaster
ville, PA 19053, USA, were planted during the summer seasons of 2012 in
one-ridge plots; 5 m length and 70 cm width. The between hills spacing was
25 cm. A randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three
replications was used in conducting this experiment. Plants were left to
open pollination. Two grains per hill were seeded and thinning was done to
one plant per hill after three weeks from planting. The parental inbreds and
their 30 F1s were evaluated during the season of 2012. In the summer
season of 2013, out of these 30 crosses, five as well as their parental inbreds
were selected and planted as described before. When plants had four to five
leaves, thinning to one plant per hill was done. Evaluations was carried out
at the private farm of Wahba`s family, Taha Village, Minia Governorate,
Egypt.
296

Throughout the experimental area an even application of 150 kg of

P2O5 using calcium super phosphate 15.5% P2O5 and 120 kg of nitrogen
using ammonium sulphate (21.0 N%) were added as recommended by the
Egyptian Ministry of Agriculture for field corn production. Other
conventional cultural practices (irrigation, weed and pest control) were
applied as needed and were similar to those used in commercial field corn
production. Harvesting was carried out on August.
Data recorded
Data were collected on 10 plant samples for the following traits:
1. Growth characteristics
1.1. Number of days to 50% tasseling
1.2. Number of days to 50% silking
1.3. Plant height
2. Dry ear and kernel characteristics
2.1. Ear height
2.2. Ear length
2.3. Ear diameter
2.4. Number of rows/ ear
2.5. Number of kernels/row
3. Yield and T.S.S characteristics
3.1. Average fresh yield: Weight of total husked as well as huskless
fresh ears at marketable stage (21 days from siliking) of each
plant was determined for each entry.
3.2. Total soluble solids (TSS)%: TSS was determined in juice of
kernels at marketable stage (21 days from silking) from each
genotype according to the official methods of analysis AOAC,
1995 using handheld refractometer model FG103/113
measuring range of 0~ 32%.
Heterosis estimation
The amount of heterosis was computed for each hybrid in both
seasons using the following equations according to Hallauer and Miranda
(1995) and Fehr et al (1993):
1- Mid-parent heterosis (M.P.H)
= {(F1- MP)/MP}100
2- Better parent heterosis (Heterobetiosis)
= {(F1- BP)/BP}100
3- Superiority over check cultivar
= {(F1- C) / C}100

297

Where;
MP = Mean performance of the two parental inbreds.
F = Mean performance of F1 plants.
BP = Mean performance of better parent.
C = Mean performance of check cultivar.
Statistical analysis
All obtained data of 2012 and 2013 season was statistically analyzed
according to Gomez and Gomez (1984) using MSTATC program. The
Duncan test at 5% level of probability was utilized for the comparisons
among the tested genotypes in a randomized complete block design with
three replications.
Test of significant for percent of heterosis and superiority over the
check was made using t-test as described by Falconer and Mackay (1996).
The standard errors of the difference for mid-parent heterosis, better-parent
and superiority over the check were computed as:
t (mid-parent) = (F1 MP)/SE(d)
SE (d) = (3Me/r)1/2
t (better-parent) = (F1 B)/SE(d)
SE(d) = (2Me/r)1/2
t (superiority over the check) = (F1 C)/SE(d)
SE(d) = (2Me/r)1/2
Where;
SE = standard error of difference.
Me = error mean square.
r = number of replication.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Mean performance of parents and hybrids is presented in Table (1).
These variations may be due to inbreds and crosses effects as reported by
(Tracy 1990). However, the coefficient of variation for all traits ranged from
4.94% for siliking date to 30.80% for dehusked ear weight.
1. Growth characteristics
1.1 Number of days to 50% tasseling
Number of days to tasseling of the parental genotypes ranged from
51.0 day for P8 to 60 day for P4. For crosses between field and sweet corn
inbreds it ranged from 46.0 days for cross P11P2 to 53.5 days for crosses,
P9P1, P9P2 and P10 x P3. The crosses involving P7 inbred tasseled earlies
than inbreds 9 and 10. Significant and insignificant mid-parent heterosis
(Table 2) were observed among the tested crosses for this trait. The best
(negative) and lowest heterosis value was recorded by cross P11P2 (15.21%). The F1 hybrid between P11 and P2 gave the best percentage of
better parent heterosis (-14.02%) for this trait (Table 3).
298

Table1. Performance of parental inbreds of field and sweet corn and

their obtained hybrids, summer season of 2012.
Ser. Gen.

Days to 50%
tasseling

Ear
length
(cm)

Ear
diameter
(cm)

126.8 cd
123.8 c-e
137.0 b
101.5 k-m
99.3 m
116.9 f-i
39.3 t
55.0 s
65.8 r
73.13 q
51.0 s

23.2 c-f
22.1 d-g
17.5 jk
17.0 k
25.0 a-c
20.6 g-i
14.0 l
12.5 l
12.4 l
12.6 l
9.8 m

4.5 b-f
5.2 a
4.8 a-d
4.6 a-e
4.4 b-f
4.0 e-h
4.2 d-h
3.6 hi
3.9 f-h
3.2 i
4.8 a-d

71.0 q
90.6 op
105.5 kl
99.0 m
93.0 no
115.0 hi
86.0 p
111.0 ij
111.5 ij
128.5 c
100.3 lm
115.3 hi
106.5 jk
144.3 a
117.0 f-i
111.3 ij
121.5 d-g
98.0 mn
91.5 o
123.0 ce
92.0 no
116.8 f-i
116.3 f-i
115.8 g-i
113.5 hi
118.5 e-h
127.0 cd
122.0 d-f
111.8 ij
134.3 b
55.0 s
28.47

25.0 a-c
22.5 d-g
22.0 e-g
22.0 e-g
24.0 b-e
22. 0 d-g
24.0 b-e
23.0 c-g
22.5 d-g
25.0 a-c
24.5 b-d
19.0 i-k
24.0 b-e
19.0 i-k
22.8 c-g
24.0 b-e
24.0 b-e
24.3 b-e
26.9 a
26.0 a-c
23.5 c-f
23.6 b-f
24.0 b-e
24.0 b-e
22.4 d-g
21.5 f-h
19.5 h-j
22.0 e-g
22.7 c-g
24.5 b-d
19.5 h-j
26.47

5.0 ab
4.5 b-f
4.8 a-d
4.5 b-f
4.5 b-f
4.5 b-f
4.5 b-f
5.0 ab
4.5 b-f
4.5 b-f
5.0 ab
5.0 ab
4.3 c-g
4.5 b-f
4.2 d-h
4.5 b-f
5.0 ab
4.7 a-d
5.0 ab
4.9 a-c
3.7 g-i
4.9 a-c
4.5 b-f
4.0 e-h
4.2 d-h
4.7 a-d
4.8 a-d
4.9 a-c
4.2 d-h
4.5 b-f
4.3 c-g
12.77

Days to 50% Plant height Ear height

silking
(cm)
(cm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
P9
P10
P11

52.0 g-i
53.5 ef
58.0 b
60.0 a
54.0 de
57.5 bc
53.0 e-g
51.0 i-k
53.5 ef
56.5 c
55.0 d

53.93 f-h
56.00 de
60.50 b
62.50 a
57.00 cd
60.00 b
55.00 ef
54.00 f-h
56.00 de
58.00 cd
57.50 cd

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31

P7P1
P7P2
P7P3
P7P4
P7P5
P7P6
P8P1
P8P2
P8P3
P8P4
P8P5
P8P6
P9P1
P9P2
P9P3
P9P4
P9P5
P9P6
P10P1
P10P2
P10P3
P10P4
P10P5
P10P6
P11P1
P11P2
P11P3
P11P4
P11P5
P11P6
232Y
CV

47.5 p
47.5 p
48.5 n-p
47.5 p
49.0 m-o
49.9 k-m
47.5 p
51.0 i-k
49.5 l-n
51.0 i-k
47.5 p
50.5 j-l
53.5 ef
53.5 ef
52.0 g-i
50.5 j-l
52.0 g-i
52.0 g-i
51.0 i-k
52.5 f-h
53.5 ef
52.5 f-h
52.5 f-h
49.0 m-o
51.5 h-j
46.0 q
51.0 i-k
52.0 g-i
49.0 m-o
50.5 j-l
48.0 op
4.99

50.5 kl
50.5 kl
51.5 jk
49.6 l
51.5 jk
53.0 hi
50.5 kl
53.5 gh
51.0 j-l
53.0 hi
50.9 j-l
53.5 gh
53.5 gh
55.0 ef
54.5 fg
51.5 jk
54.5 fg
54.5 fg
53.0 hi
54.5 fg
54.0 f-h
55.0 ef
55.0 ef
52.0 ij
54.3 f-h
53.0 hi
54.0 f-h
54.5 fg
50.5 kl
50.0 l
51.0 j-l
4.95

Parents
230.5 cd
224.8 c-f
227.0 c-e
185.0 o
203.8 l-n
223.5 d-g
130.8 t
135.0 st
141.8 rs
147.8 r
137.8 st
Hybrids
181.5 op
201.0 mn
213.5 h-k
209.6 j-m
198.3 n
205.0 k-n
200.0 n
219.6 e-i
222.3 d-h
250.0 a
223.5 d-g
215.0 g-j
231.0 cd
244.8 a
222.8 d-g
227.0 c-e
226.3 c-e
211.3 i-l
186.5 o
229.5 c-e
175.2 p
242.5 ab
229.3 c-e
229.5 c-e
224.5 d-g
226.3 c-e
234.5 bc
229.5 c-e
215.3 f-j
224.5 d-g
165.0 q
18.97

299

Table 1. Cont.
Ser.

Gen.

No. of
rows/ear

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
P9
P10
P11

17.9 bc
18.8 ab
16.0 e-h
17.2 cd
15.2 h-j
14.4 jk
19.2 a
14.0 k
15.2 h-j
14.0 k
11.2 l

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31

P7P1
P7P2
P7P3
P7P4
P7P5
P7P6
P8P1
P8P2
P8P3
P8P4
P8P5
P8P6
P9P1
P9P2
P9P3
P9P4
P9P5
P9P6
P10P1
P10P2
P10P3
P10P4
P10P5
P10P6
P11P1
P11P2
P11P3
P11P4
P11P5
P11P6
232Y
CV

16.7 de
17.4 cd
16.0 e-h
17.4 cd
13.7 k
18.0 bc
17.4 cd
15.5 g-i
15.6 f-h
16.4 d-g
17.3 cd
16.7 de
15.3 h-j
14.7 i-k
14.0 k
18.0 bc
17.2 cd
18.0 bc
19.4 a
17.2 cd
14.5 jk
17.2 cd
16.0 e-h
18.0 bc
14.0 k
16.0 e-h
16.5 d-f
16.7 de
14.0 k
18.0 bc
14.5 jk
13.05

No. of kernels Husked ear Dehusked ear

/row
weight (g)
weight (g)
Parents
46.6 lm
359.8 d
287.7 f
49.0 g-j
358.6 d
294.7 e
41.3 p-r
258.2 p
178.2 w
38.0 s
265.7 op
172.3 x
47.5 j-m
302.5 i-k
237.5 m
42.0 p
230.2 q
165.8 y
33.0 t
166.2 r
131.8 z
27.5 u
122.8 t
84.5 z
23.0 w
171.8 r
135.0 z
25.0 v
148.4 s
113.5 z
25.5 v
84.3 u
52.9 z
Hybrids
50.0 fg
299.5 j-l
271.5 h
46.5 lm
285.1 l-n
235.3 n
47.7 i-l
289.0 k-m
228.0 p
45.0 no
268.8 op
225.0 qr
53.5 b
270.7 n-p
222.3 s
44.5 o
312.5 h-j
231.5 o
49.2 g-i
311.0 h-j
245.0 l
51.0 d-f
292.0 k-m
226.5 pq
49.5 gh
277.0 m-o
223.7 rs
53.7 ab
263.0 op
213.0 u
53.2 bc
338.5 fg
255.0 i
40.5 qr
286.3 l-n
230.3 o
47.0 k-m
264.5 op
217.4 t
44.5 o
395.6 bc
328.2 c
49.0 g-j
358.8 d
287.6 f
49.0 g-j
355.6 de
286.5 f
51.5 de
409.4 bc
333.9 b
52.0 cd
428.4 a
355.5 a
55.0 ab
317.7 hi
245.7 l
52.0 cd
326.2 gh
237.6 m
48.4 h-k
316.4 hi
253.6 ij
41.5 pq
348.4 d-f
279.2 g
46.0 mn
325.0 gh
252.5 j
53.7 ab
427.7 a
357.0 a
42.0 p
341.8 ef
278.5 g
42.7 p
360.0 d
295.0 e
50.4 e-g
385.7 c
311.5 d
47.5 j-m
349.8 d-f
273.0 h
49.0 g-j
341.6 ef
251.9 j
49.0 g-j
342.6 ef
248.0 k
40.0 r
242.3 q
199.5 v
24.66
29.05
30.86

T.S.S (%)
17.0 hi
19.0 fg
18.0 gh
15.0 jk
16.0 ij
14.0 k
21.0 c-e
22.0 bc
22.0 bc
20.0 d-f
21.0 c-e
19.5 e-g
21.5 b-d
19.0 g-g
20.5 c-f
18.0 gh
19.0 fg
19.0 fg
18.0 gh
19.0 fg
20.0 d-f
21.0 c-e
23.0 ab
17.0 hi
17.1 hi
22.9 ab
22.0 bc
23.0 ab
22.0 bc
20.0 d-f
17.0 hi
22.97 ab
17.0 hi
22.0 bc
18.0 gh
22.0 bc
18.0 gh
18.1 gh
22.0 bc
24.0 a
22.0 bc
19.0 fg
11.40

Means in the same column followed by the letter(s) are not statistically
different at 5% probability level

300

Table 2. Percentage the values of mid-parent heterosis for flowering

dates and other agronomic traits in 30 F1-hybrids, 2012.
Ser. Crosses
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

P7P1
P7P2
P7P3
P7P4
P7P5
P7P6
P8P1
P8P2
P8P3
P8P4
P8P5
P8P6
P9P1
P9P2
P9P3
P9P4
P9P5
P9P6
P10P1
P10P2
P10P3
P10P4
P10P5
P10P6
P11P1
P11P2
P11P3
P11P4
P11P5
P11P6

Days to Days to
50%
50%
tasseling silking

Plant
height
(cm)

Ear
height
(cm)

Ear
Ear
length diameter
(cm)
(cm)

-10.77**
-9.92*
-11.45**
-12.98**
-11.45**
-9.23*
-8.66*
-6.25ns
-4.69ns
-7.81*
-6.25ns
-8.66*
-2.36ns
-3.13ns
-4.69ns
-7.81*
-9.38*
-5.51ns
-4.84ns
-4.00ns
-2.40ns
-0.80ns
-7.20*
-1.61ns
-7.09*
-15.21**
-6.25ns
-7.81*
-7.81*
-7.09*

-0.08ns
13.05*
19.34**
32.74**
18.53**
15.72**
8.84*
22.07**
22.82**
56.25**
31.94**
19.94**
23.43**
33.55**
20.82**
38.92**
30.96**
15.69**
-1.92ns
23.19**
0.59ns
45.73**
30.43**
23.62**
21.25**
24.82**
28.56**
42.19**
26.05**
24.27**

-14.51**
11.10*
19.68**
40.63**
34.20**
47.15**
-5.39ns
24.16**
16.15**
64.22**
30.01**
34.07**
10.59**
52.22**
18.64**
33.05**
47.18**
7.22ns
-6.92ns
27.07**
-10.25*
36.37**
37.55**
23.98**
27.67**
35.58**
35.11**
60.00**
48.77**
59.88**

34.41**
24.65**
39.68**
41.94**
23.08**
30.06**
34.45**
32.95**
50.00**
69.49**
30.67**
14.80*
34.83**
10.14*
52.51**
63.27**
28.34**
47.27**
50.28**
54.30**
56.15**
37.16**
27.66**
44.58**
35.76**
34.80**
42.86**
64.18**
30.46**
61.18**

-8.27*
-11.11**
-9.63*
-12.59**
-9.63*
-6.77*
-6.15*
-4.55ns
-4.55ns
-6.06*
-6.06*
-4.62ns
-3.82ns
-8.27*
-5.26ns
-9.77*
-8.27*
-6.87*
-3.17ns
-3.13ns
-1.56**
1.56ns
-4.69ns
0.00ns
-10.77**
-7.58*
-6.06*
-13.64**
-10.61**
-7.69*

301

14.94**
-4.26ns
6.67ns
2.27 ns
4.65 ns
9.76ns
11.11 ns
13.64 ns
7.14 ns
9.76 ns
25.00**
31.58**
2.38 ns
-1.10 ns
-3.45 ns
5.88 ns
20.48**
18.99**
29.87**
16.67**
-7.50ns
25.64**
18.42**
11.11ns
-9.68ns
-6.00ns
0.00 ns
4.26 ns
-8.70ns
2.27 ns

Table 2. Cont.
No. of
Ser. Crosses Rows/
ear

No. of
kernels/
row

Husked
Dehusked
ear
ear weight
weight (g)
(g)

T.S.S
(%)

1
P7P1 -10.22**
25.00**
12.59*
22.29**
2.63ns
*
*
ns
ns
2
P7P2
-8.42
13.41
7.42
10.34
7.50**
3
P7P3
-9.09*
27.86**
34.29**
47.10**
-2.56 ns
4
P7P4 -4.40ns
26.76**
22.77**
41.78**
13.89**
**
**
*
**
5
P7P5 -20.35
32.92
14.05
20.39
-2.70ns
6
P7P6
7.14*
18.67**
55.32**
55.58**
8.57*
*
**
**
**
7
P8P1
8.75
32.08
28.89
31.65
-2.56ns
8
P8P2 -5.49ns
33.33**
21.31**
19.46*
-12.20**
9
P8P3 6.67 ns
43.90**
45.41**
65.21**
-5.00**
*
**
**
**
10 P8P4
8.97
63.97
35.39
57.72
8.11*
11 P8P5 18.49**
41.87**
59.18**
58.39**
10.53**
**
*
**
**
12 P8P6 17.61
16.55
62.21
84.02
27.78**
13 P9P1
-7.23*
34.29**
-0.49ns
2.86ns
-12.82**
**
**
**
**
14 P9P2 -13.53
23.61
49.17
52.76
-17.07**
15 P9P3 -10.26**
52.41**
60.70**
83.65**
15.00**
16 P9P4 11.11**
60.66**
62.56**
78.73**
18.92**
**
**
**
**
17 P9P5 13.16
46.10
72.63
79.28
21.05**
18 P9P6 21.62**
60.00**
113.13**
136.44**
22.22**
**
**
**
*
19 P10P1 21.25
52.78
25.03
18.00
8.11*
20 P10P2 5.49 ns
40.54**
28.68**
16.41*
-12.82**
ns
**
**
**
21 P10P3 -3.33
46.00
55.63
73.88
21.05**
22 P10P4 10.26**
31.75**
68.27**
86.69**
-2.86 ns
23 P10P5
9.59*
26.90**
44.16**
43.87**
22.22**
**
**
**
**
24 P10P6 26.76
60.30
125.94
155.64
5.88*
25 P11P1 -4.11 ns
15.86*
53.93**
63.53**
15.79**
ns
*
**
**
26 P11P2 6.67
15.44
62.56
69.79
-10.00**
27 P11P3 21.32**
50.90**
125.40**
169.58**
7.69*
**
**
**
**
28 P11P4 17.61
49.61
99.89
128.93
22.22**
29 P11P5 6.06 ns
34.25**
76.63**
73.48**
29.73**
30 P11P6 40.63**
45.19**
117.86**
126.79**
25.71**
Ns, * and ** = insignificant, significant and highly significant values
respectively using t test

302

Table 3. Percentage of better-parent heterosis for flowering dates and

other agronomic traits in 30 F1-hybrids, 2012.
Days to Days to Plant
Ear
Ear
Ear
Ser. Crosses 50%
50% height, height, length, diameter,
tasseling silking
cm
cm
cm
cm
1
P7P1
-8.65** -6.48** -21.94** 80.66** 7.76*
11.11 ns
2
P7P2 -10.38** -8.18** -10.59** 130.53** 1.81 ns
-13.46*
**
**
*
**
**
3
P7P3
-8.49
-6.36
-5.95 168.45 25.71
0.00 ns
4
P7P4 -10.38** -9.09** 13.30** 151.91** 29.41**
-2.17 ns
**
**
ns
**
ns
5
P7P5
-7.55
-6.36
-2.70 136.64 -4.00
2.27 ns
6
P7P6
-5.66* -3.64ns -8.28** 192.62** 9.22*
12.50*
7
P8P1
-6.86** -6.48** -13.98** 56.36** 3.45ns
0.00 ns
ns
ns
ns
**
ns
8
P8P2
0.00
-0.93
-2.31 101.82
4.07
-3.85ns
9
P8P3
-2.94*
-5.56* -2.07ns 102.73** 28.57**
-6.25 ns
ns
ns
**
**
**
10 P8P4
0.00
-1.85 35.14 133.64 47.06
-2.17ns
11 P8P5
-6.86*
-5.56* 9.67** 82.36** -2.00ns
13.64*
ns
ns
ns
**
**
12 P8P6 -0.98
-0.93
-3.80 109.64 -7.77
25.00**
13 P9P1
2.88*
-0.93ns -0.65 ns 61.85** 3.45ns
-4.44 ns
14 P9P2
0.00 ns -1.79ns 8.90** 119.30** -14.03** -13.46*
15 P9P3
-2.80* -2.68ns -1.85ns 82.83** 30.29**
-12.50*
16 P9P4
-5.61* -8.04** 22.70** 69.15** 41.18**
-2.17ns
*
ns
**
**
ns
17 P9P5
-2.80
-2.68 11.04 84.65
-4.00
13.64*
18 P9P6
-2.80* -2.68ns -5.46* 48.94** 17.96**
17.50**
ns
ns
**
**
**
19 P10P1 -1.92
-1.85 -19.78 31.09
15.95
11.11 ns
20 P10P2 -1.87ns -2.68ns 2.09ns 76.22** 23.22**
-5.77ns
21 P10P3
-5.31* -6.90** -16.96** 32.95** 34.29** -22.92**
22 P10P4 -7.08** -5.17** 31.08** 67.34** 19.41**
6.52 ns
23 P10P5
-2.78*
-3.51* 12.51** 66.62** -4.00 ns
2.27 ns
**
**
ns
**
**
24 P10P6 -13.27 -10.34
2.68
65.90
16.50
0.00 ns
25 P11P1 -0.96 ns 0.00 ns -3.44ns 122.55** -3.45 ns
-12.50*
**
*
ns
**
ns
26 P11P2 -14.02
-5.36
0.67 132.35 -2.71
-9.62*
27 P11P3 -7.27** -6.09** 3.30ns 149.02** 11.43**
0.00 ns
28 P11P4
-5.45*
-5.22* 24.05** 139.22** 29.41**
2.08 ns
**
**
*
**
*
29 P11P5 -9.26
-11.40
5.64 119.22
-9.20
-12.50*
30 P11P6 -8.18** -13.04** 0.45ns 163.33** 18.93**
-6.25*

303

Table 3. Cont.
No. of
No. of
Husked ear Dehusked ear
Ser. Crosses
kernels /
T.S.S (%)
Rows/ear
weight (g)
weight (g)
row
1
P7P1 -13.02**
6.38*
-16.76**
-10.84**
-7.14*
**
*
**
**
2
P7P2
-9.38
-5.10
-20.50
-20.16
2.38 ns
**
**
**
**
3
P7P3 -16.67
15.01
11.93
27.95
-9.52**
4
P7P4
-9.38**
18.42**
1.17 ns
21.23**
-2.38*
**
**
**
**
5
P7P5 -28.65
12.63
-10.51
-6.40
-14.29**
*
*
**
**
6
P7P6
-6.25
5.95
35.75
39.63
-9.52*
ns
ns
**
ns
7
P8P1
-3.33
4.68
-13.56
-14.84
-13.64**
8
P8P2 -17.55**
4.08ns
-18.57**
-23.14**
-18.18**
ns
**
*
**
9
P8P3
0.00
19.85
7.28
21.77
-13.64**
ns
**
ns
**
10
P8P4
-1.16
41.32
-1.02
14.76
-9.09**
11
P8P5
13.82**
12.00**
11.90**
7.37**
-4.55ns
**
ns
**
**
12
P8P6
15.97
-3.57
24.37
38.90
4.55ns
**
ns
**
**
13
P9P1 -14.44
0.00
-26.49
-24.44
-22.73**
**
**
**
**
14
P9P2 -21.81
-9.18
10.32
11.37
-22.73**
15
P9P3 -12.50**
18.64**
33.81**
61.39**
4.55ns
ns
**
**
**
16
P9P4
4.65
28.95
33.84
54.36
0.00 ns
**
**
**
**
17
P9P5
13.16
8.42
35.34
40.59
4.55ns
18
P9P6
18.42**
23.81**
86.10**
114.48**
0.00 ns
*
**
**
**
19
P10P1
7.78
17.02
-11.70
-17.73
0.00 ns
*
*
*
**
20
P10P2
-7.98
6.12
-9.04
-19.38
-15.00**
*
**
**
**
21
P10P3
-9.38
17.19
22.54
42.31
15.00**
22
P10P4
0.00 ns
9.21**
31.13**
50.43**
-15.00**
ns
ns
*
*
23
P10P5
5.26
-3.16
7.44
6.32
10.00**
**
**
**
**
24
P10P6 25.00
27.86
85.79
115.32
-10.00**
25
P11P1 -22.22** -10.64 **
-5.00ns
-3.20ns
4.76ns
**
**
ns
ns
26
P11P2 -14.89
-12.24
0.39
0.14
-14.29**
ns
**
**
**
27
P11P3
3.13
22.03
49.50
74.80
0.00 ns
ns
**
**
**
28
P11P4 -2.91
25.00
31.65
47.09
4.76ns
29
P11P5
-7.89*
3.16ns
12.93**
6.06*
14.29**
**
**
**
**
30
P11P6 25.00
16.67
48.82
49.58
4.76 ns
Ns, * and ** = insignificant, significant and highly significant values
respectively using t test.

Moreover, superiority over check cultivar (Table 4) reached -4.17%

(for P11xP2). Tasseling date of the parental inbreds is an important trait and
should be considered in order to assure pollen shed-silking synchronization
to get good F1 seeds (Jager et al 2004). Out of the 30 single crosses, six
were earlier in tasseling than the check hybrid (Table 1). The earliest cross
was P11P2 which tasseled after 46.0 days from planting.
304

Table 4. Percentage of superiority over the check parent for flowering

dates and other agronomic traits in 30 F1-hybrids 2012.
Ser. Crosses
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

P7P1
P7P2
P7P3
P7P4
P7P5
P7P6
P8P1
P8P2
P8P3
P8P4
P8P5
P8P6
P9P1
P9P2
P9P3
P9P4
P9P5
P9P6
P10P1
P10P2
P10P3
P10P4
P10P5
P10P6
P11P1
P11P2
P11P3
P11P4
P11P5
P11P6

Days to Days to
50%
50%
tasseling silking
-1.04ns
-1.04 ns
1.04 ns
-1.04 ns
2.08*
4.17*
-1.04 ns
6.25**
3.13*
6.25**
-1.04ns
5.21*
11.46**
11.46**
8.33**
5.21*
8.33**
8.33**
6.25**
9.38**
11.46**
9.38**
9.38**
2.08*
7.29**
-4.17*
6.25**
8.33**
2.08*
5.21*

-0.98ns
-0.98ns
0.98ns
-1.96ns
0.98ns
3.92*
-0.98 ns
4.90**
0.00 ns
3.92*
0.00 ns
4.90**
4.90**
7.84**
6.86**
0.98ns
6.86**
6.86**
3.92*
6.86**
5.88**
7.84**
7.84**
1.96 ns
5.88**
3.92*
5.88**
6.86**
-0.98 ns
-1.96 ns

Plant
height,
cm
10.00**
21.82**
29.39**
27.03**
20.18**
24.24**
21.21**
33.09**
34.73**
51.52**
35.45**
30.30**
40.00**
48.36**
35.03**
37.58**
37.15**
28.06**
13.03**
39.09**
14.24**
46.97**
38.97**
39.09**
36.06**
37.15**
42.12**
39.09**
30.48**
36.06**

305

Ear
Ear height,
length,
cm
cm
29.09**
64.73**
91.82**
80.00**
69.09**
109.09**
56.36**
101.82**
102.73**
133.64**
82.36**
109.64**
93.64**
162.36**
118.73**
102.36**
120.91**
78.18**
66.36**
123.64**
68.73**
112.36**
111.45**
110.55**
106.36**
115.45**
130.91**
121.82**
103.27**
144.18**

28.21**
15.38**
12.82**
12.82**
23.08**
15.38**
23.08**
17.95**
15.38**
28.21**
25.64**
-2.56 ns
23.08**
-2.56**
16.92**
23.08**
23.08**
24.62**
37.95**
33.33**
20.51**
4.10 ns
23.08**
23.08**
14.87**
10.26**
0.00 ns
12.82**
16.41**
25.64**

Ear
diameter,
cm
16.28**
4.65 ns
11.63**
4.65 ns
4.65 ns
4.65 ns
4.65 ns
16.28**
4.65 ns
4.65 ns
16.28**
16.28**
0.00 ns
4.65 ns
-2.33ns
4.65 ns
16.28*
9.30*
4.65 ns
13.95**
-13.95**
13.95**
4.65 ns
-6.98*
-2.33 ns
9.30**
11.63**
13.95**
-2.33ns
4.65 ns

Table 4. Cont.
No. of
No. of
Husked
Dehusked
T.S.S
Ser. Crosses
Rows/
Grains/
ear weight ear weight
(%)
ear
row
(g)
(g)
1
P7P1
15.17**
25.00**
23.61**
28.57**
2.63 ns
**
**
*
**
2
P7P2
20.00
16.25
17.66
17.94
13.16**
*
**
*
*
3
P7P3
10.34
18.75
19.27
14.29
0.00 ns
4
P7P4
20.00**
12.50**
10.94 ns
12.78*
7.89 *
ns
**
ns
ns
5
P7P5
-5.52
33.75
11.72
11.43
-5.26 ns
**
**
**
**
6
P7P6
24.14
11.25
28.97
16.04
0.00 ns
**
**
**
**
7
P8P1
20.00
23.00
28.35
22.81
0.00 ns
8
P8P2
6.90*
27.50**
20.51**
13.53*
-5.26 ns
**
**
ns
ns
9
P8P3
10.34
23.75
14.32
8.77
0.00 ns
**
**
ns
ns
10 P8P4
17.24
34.25
8.54
6.77
5.26 ns
11 P8P5
19.31**
33.00**
39.70**
27.82**
10.53**
**
ns
*
**
12 P8P6
15.17
1.25
18.16
15.44
21.05**
*
**
ns
ns
13 P9P1
6.21
17.50
9.16
8.97
-10.53**
ns
**
**
**
14 P9P2
1.38
11.25
63.27
64.51
-10.53**
15 P9P3
-3.45 ns
22.50**
42.59**
44.16**
21.05**
**
**
**
**
16 P9P4
24.14
22.50
46.76
43.61
15.79**
**
**
**
**
17 P9P5
18.62
28.75
68.96
67.37
21.05**
18 P9P6
24.14**
30.00**
76.81**
78.25**
15.79**
**
**
**
**
19 P10P1
33.79
37.50
31.12
18.65
5.26 ns
**
**
**
**
20 P10P2
19.31
30.00
34.63
19.10
-10.53**
ns
**
**
**
21 P10P3
0.00
21.00
30.58
27.12
21.05**
22 P10P4
18.62**
3.75 ns
43.79**
39.95**
-10.53**
**
**
**
**
23 P10P5
10.34
15.00
34.13
26.57
15.79**
**
**
**
**
24 P10P6
24.14
34.25
76.52
78.95
-5.26 ns
25 P11P1
-3.45 ns
5.00 ns
41.06**
39.60**
15.79**
**
*
**
**
26 P11P2
10.34
7.50
48.58
47.92
-5.26 ns
**
**
**
**
27 P11P3
13.79
26.00
59.31
56.14
10.53**
**
**
**
**
28 P11P4
15.17
18.75
44.37
36.84
15.79**
29 P11P5
-3.45 ns
22.50**
40.98**
26.27**
26.32**
**
**
**
**
30 P11P6
24.14
22.50
41.39
24.31
15.79**
Ns, * and ** = insignificant, significant and highly significant values
respectively using t test.

1.2 Number of days to 50% silking

Genetic variability among the parental genotypes was observed for
number of days to silking. The parental genotype P1 had the lowest number
of days to silking (53.9 days), but inbred 4 was the latest (62.5 days).
Dickert and Tracy (2002) found that no hybrid was earlier than the earliest
parent.
306

In this study, the mean number of days to silking of obtained hybrids

ranged from 49.6 days for hybrid P7P4 to 55.0 days for hybrids, P9P2,
P10P4 and P10P5, but none of the tested genotypes exceeded the lateness of
inbred 4 (62.0 days). However, significant differences among most parents
and some hybrids existed (Table 1).
Mid-parent heterosis values for this trait ranged from -13.64 % for
P11P4 to 1.56% for hybrid P10P4 (Table 2). Negative values indicates
earlier flowering. Better-parent heterosis values for this trait ranged from 13.04 % for hybrid P11P6 to 0.0 for hybrid P11P1. Regarding the
superiority over the check for days to silking, the values reached only 1.96% for (P7xP4 and P11xP6). In a selection study for early silking on 18 F2
population, Troyer and Larkins (1985) reported a decrease of 0.1 days per
cycle silk delay and in another experiment on F2 population, gain per cycle
averaged a reduction of 0.2 day silk delay (Troyer 1990). However, most
studies reported that more than two genes are controlling the timing of
silking and tasseling with some evidence of existence of dominance and
epistatic gene effects (Giesbrecht 1960 a and b). In 2002, Dickert and Tracy
showed that heterosis for silk date was significant, but the difference
between parents and hybrids was very small (0.5 day). Flowering time is an
important breeding objective and earlier flowering plant can escape high
temperature of August, and September, and certain diseases such as
common rust and maize dwarf mosaic virus (Alessi and Power 1975 and
Tracy et al 1999).
1.3 Plant height
Significant differences among the tested genotypes for plant height
were detected. Previous reports showed significant differences among field
corn as well as sweet corn (Revilla et al 2000b). In the parental genotypes,
plant height of sweet corn inbreds ranged from 130.8 cm for inbred no 7 to
147.8 cm for inbred no 10 but it ranged in the field corn inbreds from 185.0
cm for inbred no 4 to 230.5 cm for inbred no 1. Plant height in the first
group of morphological descriptions in UPOV TG/2 it is a genetically
complex, and environmentally stable trait (Austin et al 2001). However,
earlier flowering maize was usually shorter (Troyer and Larkins 1985).
Plant height in the F1 plants varied from 165 cm for the check hybrid
to 250.0 cm for hybrid P8P4 (Table 1). Better performance, particularly at
earlier stages of the growing cycle is an important step in producing
marketable hybrids between sweet and field corn (Burton et al 2008).
Percentage of heterosis over mid-parent for plant height ranged from
-1.92% to 56.25%, while the better parent heterosis values for plant height
varied from -21.94% to 35.14%. Maximum heterotic value was detected for
P8P4 cross (Table 3). Furthermore, hybrids showed a superiority
percentage over check ranged from 10.00% for (P7xP1) to 48.36% for
(P9xP2).
307

Plant height is closely connected with yield (Begna et al 2000,

Shaban 2003, Wahba 2009). Positive values indicates taller plants,
therefore, a proper attention should be given to this trait in the inbred
selection for releasing commercial sweet field corn hybrids. All the
studied hybrids were taller than the check hybrid.
2. Dry ear and kernel characteristics
2.1 Ear height
Data in Table (1) showed that mean ear height ranged from 39.30
cm for P7 to 144.3 for cross P9xP2. Corn breeders prefer to select for dwarf
inbred lines (Ji et al 2006) but higher corn yield genotypes have higher
plants (Gyenes-Hegyi et al 2002, Shaban 2003, Thompson 1983, and
Wahba 2009). None of the tested hybrids exhibited lower values than the
shortest inbred P7 (39.3 cm). The hybrid between the parental inbreds P7
and P1 had the lowest ear height (71.0 cm). The parental inbred no 4 had the
highest ear position followed significantly by inbred no 3. The highest ear
height hybrid was P9xP2 (144.3 cm). Mid-parent heterosis values for ear
height trait ranged from -14.51% for hybrid P7xP1 to 64.22% for P8xP4
(Table 2). Better-parent heterosis values ranged from 31.09% for hybrid
P10P1 to 192.62% for hybrid P7P6. These results indicate the possibility of
fixing adapted sweet-field corn hybrids with desired ear height position
from the tested material. The estimated values for ear height ranged from
29.09% for (P7xP1) to 162.36% for (P9xP2) over the check hybrid.
2.2 Ear length
Data in Table (1) showed that mean ear length ranged significantly
from 9.8 cm for the parental inbreds P11 to 25 cm for P5. Moreover, the
highest ear length value was noticed in the hybrid P10P1 (26.9 cm) and the
lowest one was observed in the hybrids P8 P6 and P9P2 (19.0 cm) with
highly significant differences. Ear length character is an indicator for good
quality sweet corn and also for high yield (Bozokalfa et al 2004). Midparent heterosis for ear length was positive and ranged from 10.14% for the
hybrid P9P2 to 69.49% for hybrid P8P4 (Table 2). These high mid-parent
heterosis values encourage ear hybrid breeding program between sweet and
field corn inbreds. Better-parent heterosis values ranged from 14.03 % for
hybrid P9P2 to 47.06 for hybrid P8P4.The superiority percentage over
check hybrid for this characteristic reached 37.95% for (P10xP1). Oktem and
Oktem (2006), Tuncay et al (2005) and Oktem (2008) reported that ear
length and fresh ear yield weight significantly and positively correlated in
sweet corn.
2.3 Ear diameter
Parental inbreds differed significantly in the ear diameter trait as
shown in (Table 1). The parental inbred (P2) showed the highest diameter
(5.2 cm), however, P10 had the lowest one (3.2 cm).
308

Six of the obtained hybrids (P7P1), (P8P2), (P8P5), (P8P6),

(P9P5) and (P10P1) gave the same highest value (5.0 cm), while the hybrid
(P10xP3) gave the lowest one (3.7 cm) with significant differences among
them (Table 1). None of the tested hybrids surpassed the ear diameter of
Inbred 2.
Mid-parent heterosis values were 9.68% for the hybrid (P11P1)
and 31.58, and 29.87% for (P8 P6) and (P10P1), respectively which were
the two highest values (Table 2). Better parent heterosis values for ear
diameter varied from -22.92% for P10xP3 to 25.0% for P8xP6. The
superiority over check ranged from -13.95% for (P10xP3) to 16.28% for
(P7xP1, P8xP2, P8xP5, P8xP6, and P9xP5). Ear diameter is somehow describing
the number of rows per ear. Tuncay et al (2005) and Bozokalfa et al (2004)
reported similar results of ear diameter in their studies.
2.4 Number of rows/ear
The number of rows/ear in sweet corn is an important characteristic
as it is an indication of good quality and high yield. Data in Table (1)
showed that the parental inbred 7 gave the highest number (19.2 rows),
while P11 gave the lowest one (11.2 rows). Concerning the obtained hybrids,
the highest number of rows/ear was obtained from the hybrid P10P1 (19.4
rows) which was significantly higher than all other obtained hybrids. On the
other hand, hybrids (P7P5 and P8P5) gaves the lowest values (13.7). Midparent heterosis for No. of rows/ear characteristic ranged from -20.35% for
the hybrid P7P5 to 40.63 % for hybrid P11P6 as shown in Table 2. Betterparent heterosis values ranged from -28.65% for hybrid P7P5 to 25.0 for
hybrids P10P6 and P11P6. Superiority over check for this trait ranged from
-5.52% for (P7xP5) to 24.14% for (P7xP6, P9xP4, P9xP6, P10xP6, and P11xP6).
The negative significant and positive heterosis values indicate the variability
of the heterotic response of crosses, compared to the hybrid mean and the
same magnitude of this heterosis for all crosses (Assuncao et al 2010).
2.5. Number of kernels/row
This characteristic exhibited significant variability among the used
parental inbreds and obtained hybrids as shown in Table 1. The highest
average number of kernels/row was given by the parental inbred P2 (49.0
kernels/row) and the lowest one was obtained by the inbred P9 (23.0
kernels/row) with highly significant difference between them. Moreover,
the obtained hybrid (P10P1) gave the highest value of this characteristic
(55.0 kernels/row), while both hybrids (check and P8P6) gave the lowest
value (40.0 and 40.5, respectively) but still higher than that of some of the
used parental inbreds.

309

Regarding the mid-parent heterosis, data in Table (2) showed that

the highest percentage of heterosis (63.97%) was obtained from the hybrid
(P8P4). On the contrary, the hybrid (P7P2) gave the lowest percentage
(13.41%). The better-parent heterosis values ranged from -12.24% for
hybrid P11P2 to 41.32% for hybrid P8P4. The superiority over check
reached 37.00% for (P10xP1).
3. Fresh yield and TSS characteristics
3.1 Average weight of husked ear
Weight of ears with or without husks reflects the sweet corn fresh
yield. Table (1) which illustrated the average weight of ears with husks
showed that the two parental inbreds (P1 and P2) gave the highest values of
this characteristic (359.8 and 358.6 g, respectively) with no significant
difference between them. On the other hand, P11 gave the lowest mean value
(84.3 g), which showed highly significant differences with P1 and P2. The
obtained hybrids (P9P6) and (P10P6) showed that the highest mean value
was 428.4 and 427.7g, respectively, while the lowest value was obtained
from the check hybrid (242.3g). These results are in harmony with those
obtained by Erdal et al (2011). Mid-parent heterosis percentage for this
characteristic ranged from -0.49 % for the hybrid P9P1 to 125.9 % for
hybrid (P10P6) as described in Table 2. Better-parent heterosis values
ranged from -26.49% for hybrid P9P1 to 86.1% for hybrid P9P6.
Moreover, the superiority of the hybrids over the check cultivar differed in
this trait between 8.54% for (P8xP4) and 76.81% for the hybrid P9xP6
(Tables 3 and 4). As there is heterosis with differentiated responses for
average ear weight trait, this suggests the existence of complementary
hybrid combinations due to the dominance effects (Assuncao et al 2010,
Pereira et al 2009). The positive contribution of heterosis found here
indicates the superiority of the hybrid response, since the weight of husked
ears is one of the main variables in a sweet corn breeding program.
3.2 Average weight of dehusked ears
Data showed that the parental inbreds (P1 and P2) gave the highest
yield of ears without husks (287.7 and 294.7g, respectively) comparing to
that of P11 (52.9 g) with high significant difference among them.
Furthermore, the obtained hybrids (P9P6) and (P10P6) gave the highest
values (355.5 and 357.0 g, respectively) when compared with the other
hybrids and also to all parental inbreds (Table 1). These two hybrids are
recommended for higher productivity of sweet corn as well as they have
other acceptable characteristics. On the other hand, the control (check)
hybrid gave the lowest value of average ear weight without husks (199.5 g)
comparing to the other hybrids. Mid-parent heterosis for this character
ranged from (2.86%) for the hybrid P9P1 to 169.5% for the hybrid P11P3
(Table 2).
310

The better-parent heterosis showed that the value ranged from 24.44% for (P9xP1) to 115.32% for (P10xP6). Moreover, superiority over the
check showed that the hybrids differed in this trait between the hybrid P8xP4
(6.77%) and the hybrid P10xP6 (78.95%) (Tables 3 and 4). Sprague and
Eberhart (1976) claimed that when several sweet corn cultivars are
compared into a breeding population, the average yield of the new
population will be higher than the average of the parental cultivars. So, a
number of the sweet corn germplasm pools can be synthesized. Moreover
experience with field corn should be readily transferable to sweet corn
source development (Sprague 1976 and Walden 1978).
3.3 Total soluble solids (TSS %)
The total soluble solids (TSS) content was determined in the kernels
of all parental inbreds and hybrids and data are illustrated in Table (1). The
parental inbreds P8 and P9 showed the highest values (22%) for both
comparing to P6 which showed the lowest value (14%). On the other hand,
the hybrids (P8P6), (P9P5) and (P11P5), showed the highest values (23%,
23% and 24%, respectively) compared to all other hybrids and their parental
inbreds (Table 1). Furthermore, all obtained hybrids showed TSS values
higher than the lowest value obtained from P6. Mid-parent heterosis for TSS
content in kernels of the tested hybrids ranged from -17.07% for the hybrid
(P9P2) to 29.73% for the hybrid (P11P5). The better-parent heterosis
values ranged from -22.73% for hybrids ( P9P1, P9P2) to 14.29% for
hybrid P11P5 and the superiority over check values ranged between 10.53% for P9xP1, P9xP2, P10xP2 and P10xP4 to 26.32% for P11xP5 (Tables3
and 4). For TSS trait, the higher the value, the higher is the yield in grain
processing (Pereira 1987).
Performance of the best five hybrids in the summer season of 2013
Figure (1) is showing photos of ears of five hybrids (P1xP7, P1xP10,
P2xP10, P4xP8, and P5xP8) where their hybrid vigor in ear length, ear
diameter, no of kernels/ear was very clear comparing to their paternal and
maternal parents in the summer season of 2012. However, Table (5) is
showing the performance of these best five hybrids in the summer seasons
of 2013 for eleven characteristics, i.e. Days to 50% tasseling, Days to 50%
silking, Plant height (cm), Ear height (cm), Ear length (cm), Ear diameter
(cm), No. of rows/ear, No. of kernels/row , Husked ear weight (g),
Dehusked ear weight (g), T.S.S (%) contents in the kernels. Efficient
evaluation of hybrids is very crucial in most of the sweet corn breeding
programs and the obtained hybrids should be compared against standards
for characteristics under study e.g., yield of ears, quality of ears, and
adaptation to fresh markets or processing purposes. The ear length value of
the five hybrids was higher than the check hybrid (18.95cm) and ranged
from 23.40 cm to 25.50 cm.
311

(A)

P1

P1xP10

P7

P10

P5xP8

P1xP7

P1

(B)

P8

P2

P2x P10

(C)

P10

P8

P5

4cm

P4

(E)

P4xP8

(D)

Figure 1. Photos of ears of five hybrids; (A) P1xP7, (B) P1xP10, (C)
P2xP10, (D) P4xP8, and (E) P5xP8 in which their hybrid vigor
in the F1 for ear length, ear diameter, no of kernels/ear was
very clear compared with their paternal and maternal
inbreds. bar=4cm
312

Table 5. Performance of parental inbreds of the best five hybrids

between field and sweet corn in the summer season of 2013.
Ser.

Gen.

Days
to 50%
tasseling

1
2
3
4
5
6

P1
P2
P4
P5
P7
P8

52.00 de
53.40 cd
59.63 a
53.90 c
52.90 cd
51.20 e

1
2
3
4
5
6

P7P1 47.45 g
P8P4 50.93 e
P8P5 47.95 fg
P10P1 51.08 e
P10P2 52.33 c-e
232Y 49.23 f
CV
4.99
No.
Ser. Gen. of rows/
ear
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6

P1
P2
P4
P5
P7
P8

17.80 b-d
18.63 a-c
17.18 de
14.95 fg
18.85 ab
14.05 fg

P7P1 16.58 e
P8P4 16.80 de
P8P5 16.80 de
P10P1 19.15 a
P10P2 17.63 c-e
232Y 15.10 f
CV
13.05

Days
to 50%
silking

Plant
Ear
height
height (cm)
(cm)
Parents
53.88 d
229.58 b
124.85 a
55.80 c
222.60 b
122.53 a
61.98 a
191.40 c
103.38 b
56.93 b
193.55 c
96.95 b
54.85 cd 136.28 e
45.65 f
53.90 d
135.35 e
56.93 ef
Hybrids
50.43 f
191.30 c
79.00 cd
52.75 e
252.80 a
127.78 a
51.13 f
216.78 b
89.10 bc
52.75 e
189.00 c
91.18 bc
54.08 d
231.00 b
123.23 a
51.25 f
166.65 d
56.30 ef
4.95
18.97
28.47
No.
Husked Dehusked
of kernels/ ear weight ear weight
row
(g)
(g)
Parents
45.58 de
356.85 a
286.13 a
48.58 b-d 355.70 a
291.13 a
36.98 f
255.53 e
180.45 e
46.43 c-e 296.08 d
232.08 c
32.58 g
167.88 f
126.73 f
26.73 h
123.50 h
87.23 g
Hybrids
49.70 b-d 303.63 cd 253.30 b
50.80 a-c 265.20 e
209.58 d
53.03 ab 323.23 bc 245.68 bc
54.53 a
320.15 bc 239.80 bc
43.50 e
325.73 b 244.93 bc
42.30 e
250.13 e
203.45 d
24.66
29.05
30.86

Ear
Ear
length diameter
(cm)
(cm)
23.38 a-c
22.35 c
16.75 e
22.98 f
13.50 f
12.18 f

4.40 b
5.10 a
4.33 b
4.18 b
4.20 b
3.55 c

25.05 ab
23.40 a-c
23.95 a-c
25.50 a
24.13 a-c
18.95 D
26.47

4.30 b
4.28 b
4.60 ab
4.25 b
4.75 ab
4.15 B
12.77

T.S.S
(%)
16.93 g
18.95 ef
15.13 h
16.30 g
21.13 ab
21.85 a
19.80 c-e
20.35 b-d
20.88 a-c
19.65 d-f
17.28 g
18.68 f
11.40

Means in the same column followed by the letter(s) are not statistically different at
5% probability level.

CONCLUSION
A crossing program among six field corn and five sweet corn
inbreds was used to obtain field-sweet corn hybrids and to screen the
performance of these new hybrids under EL-Minia Governorate (Middle
313

Egypt) growing conditions. Analysis of variance, coefficient of variation,

performance of the new obtained hybrids comparing to their parents and the
standard check hybrid along with the mid-better and superiority over the
check were studied. Analysis of variance indicated significant differences
among the obtained hybrids and their parents for all studied traits. Desirable
mid and better-parent heterosis as well as superiority over the check were
observed among the tested crosses. Out of the 30 single crosses, five
hybrids were retested to show their desirable characteristics in sweet field
corn hybrids comparing to the standard check sweet corn hybrid. Some of
these new field-sweet corn hybrids can be used to extend the sweet corn
plantations and may be beneficial to improve the cultivations of this crop in
the Middle Egypt region and similar areas of Egypt.
REFERENCES
Alessi, J. and J. Power (1975). Response of an early-maturing corn hybrid to planting date
and population in the Northern Plains. Agron. J. 67(6): 762-765.
Al-Naggar, A.M.M. (1998). Corn Breeding. Notes (In Arabic), Department of Agronomy,
Faculty of Agriculture, Cairo University Press, Egypt. PP141.
Aoac, (1995). Official Methods of Analysis, 16th Edition. Cuniff, P. (Ed.), AOAC
International, Washington, p. 7 (Chapter 12; Tecn. 960.52).
Assuno, A., E.M. Brasil, J.P.D. Oliveira, A.J.D.S. Reis, A.F. Pereira, L.G. Bueno,
and M.R. Ramos (2010). Heterosis performance in industrial and yield components
of sweet corn. Crop Breeding and Applied Biotechnology, 10(3): 183-190.
Austin, D.F., M. Lee, and L.R. Veldboom (2001). Genetic mapping in maize with hybrid
progeny across testers and generations: plant height and flowering. Theor. Appl.
Genet. 102(1): 163-176.
Begna, S.H., R.I. Hamilton, L.M. Dwyer, D.W. Stewart, and D.L. Smith,
(2000).Variability among maize hybrids differing in canopy architecture for aboveground dry matter and grain yield. Maydica, 45(2): 135-141.
Bozokalfa, M.K., Esiyok and D. Ugur (2004). A. Determination of yield quality and plant
characteristic of some sweet corn (Zea mays L. var. saccharata) varieties as main
and second crop in Aegean Region. The Journal of Agricultural Faculty of Ege
University. 41(1):11-19.
Burton, A., C.G. Kilsby, H.J. Fowler, P.S.P. Cowpertwait, P.E. O'Connell (2008).
RainSim: A spatial temporal stochastic rainfall modelling system, Environmental
Modelling & Software 23 (12): 1356-1369
Dagla, M., R. Gadag, N. Kumar, B. Ajay and C. Ram (2014). Potential Scope of Sweet
Corn for Peri-Urban Farmers in India. Popular Kheti 2(1): 69-73.
Davis, F.M., W. Williams, J. Mihm, B. Barry, J. Overman, B. Wiseman and T. Riley
(1988). Resistance to multiple lepidopterous species in tropical derived corn
germplasm. Technical bulletin-Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment
Station ,USA. Tech. Bull, 157. 6 pp.
Dickert, T. and W. Tracy (2002). Heterosis for flowering time and agronomic
traits among early open-pollinated sweet corn cultivars. J. American Soc.
Hort Sci. 127(5): 793-797.
Egesel, C., J. Wong, R. Lambert and T. Rocheford. (2003). Combining ability of maize
inbreds for carotenoids and tocopherols. Crop Science (3)43: 818-823.
El-Seidy, M.M. (2001). Physiological studies on sweet corn. M. Sc. Thesis in Agric. Sci.
Vegetable Crops Fac. of Agric., Ain- Shams Univ. Egypt.

314

Erdal, ., M. Pamukcu, O. Savur and M. Tezel (2011). Evaluation of developed standard

sweet corn (Zea mays sacharata L.) hybrids for fresh yield, yield components and
quality parameters. Turkish Journal of Field Crops 16(2): 153-156.
Falconer, D.S., and T.E.C. Mackay(1996). Introduction to quantitative genetics 4th ed.
Longman London.
Fehr, E., G. Kirchsteiger and A. Riedl (1993). Does fairness prevent market clearing? An
experimental investigation." The Quarterly Journal of Economics,180 : 437-459.
Giesbrecht, J. (1960a). The inheritance of maturity in maize. Canadian Journal of Plant
Science, 40(3): 490-499.
Giesbrecht, J. (1960b). The inheritance of ear height in Zea mays. Canadian Journal of
Genetics and Cytology 3(1), 26-33.
Gomez, K.W. and A.A. Gomez (1984). Statistical Procedures for Agriculture Research.
John Wiley and Sone, Inc., New York.
Gyenes-Hegyi, Z., I. Pk, and L. Kizmus (2002). Plant height and height of the main ear
in maize (Zea mays L.) at different locations and different plant densities. Acta
agronomicea hungarica 50(1): 75-84.
Hallauer, A.R., Filho, J.B. Miranda (1995). Quantitative Genetics in Maize
Breeding.2.ed. Ames: Iowa State University Press, USA.
Jaeger, S.L., C.N. Macken, G.E. Erickson, T.J. Klopfenstein, W.A. Fithian and D.S.
Jackson. (2004). The influence of corn kernel traits on feedlot cattle performance.
Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports: 197.
Ji, H.C., J.W. Cho and T. Yamakawa. (2006). Diallel analysis of plant and ear heights in
tropical maize (Zea mays L.)." J. Fac. Agr., Kyushu Univ, 51(2): 233-238.
Kaukis, K. and D. Davis. (1986). "Sweet corn breeding ".Breeding Vegetable Crops.
Westport, CN: AVI: 477-512.
Oktem, A. (2008). Determination of selection criterions for sweet corn using path
coefficient analyses. Cereal Research Communications, 36(4): 561-570.
KTEM, A., and A. G. KTEM. (2006). Baz eker msr (Zea mays saccharata Sturt)
genotiplerinin Harran Ovas koullarnda verim karakteristiklerinin belirlenmesi.
Uluda niversitesi Ziraat Fakltesi Dergisi, 20(1):33-46.
Pereira, A.S.(1987). Composio, avaliaoorganoleptica e padro de qualidade de
cultivares de milho-doce.Horticultura Brasileira, Braslia, 5(2).22-24.
Pereira, A.F., P.G.S, Melo, J.M, Pereira, A. Assuno, A. D. R. Nascimento, and P.A,
Ximenes (2009). Agronomic and nutritional characters of genotypes of sweet corn.
Bioscience Journal 25(1), 104-112
Reif, J., A. Hallauer and A. Melchinger (2005). Heterosis and heterotic patterns in
maize.Maydica 50(3/4): 215.
Revilla Temio, P., R.A. Malvar Pintos, M. Abun, B. OrdsLpez, M. d. P.
SoengasFernndez and A. OrdsPrez (2000a). Genetic background effect on
germination of su1 maize and viability of the su1 allele. Maydica 45: 109-111.
Revilla, P., P. Velasco, M.I. Vales, R.A. Malvar and A. Ords (2000b). Cultivar
heterosis between sweet and Spanish field corn. Journal of the American Society for
Horticultural Science, 125(6): 684-688.
Shaban, M.S. (2003). Genetic studies one some economic characters in sweet corn (Zea
mays L.). M.Sc.Fac. Agric. Moshtoher Zagazig Univ. Egypt.
Sprague G.F., and S.A. Eberhart (1976). Corn breeding. In: Corn and Corn
Improvement, Sprague, G.F. ed., American Society of Agronomy. Madison, WI.
p.305362.
Sprague, J.I. (1976). Utilization of high moisture corn for cattle. In Proc. High Moisture
Corn Symposium. Okl. St. Univ., Stillwater. p. 161.

315

Thompson, S.A. (1983). Mass selection for prolificacy in corn at high and low plant
densities: cycle means and genotypic variances. DissAbstrInt 43:2414B.
Tracy, W. X., T.K. Roslak, J. Murrah, F. Riso, R. Beach, R. Sandler, and J. Klein
(1999). Method and system for presenting item information using a portable data
terminal. U.S. Patent No. 5,979,757. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office.
Tracy, W.F. (1990). Potential contributions of five exotic maize populations to sweet corn
improvement. Crop Sci. 30(4): 918-923.
Tracy, W.F. (2001).Sweet corn. In: Speciality Cross (Hallauer A. R., ed), 2nd ed, CRC
Press, Boca Raton, Florida. PP. 155- 197.
Troyer, A. (1990). A retrospective view of corn genetic resources. Journal of Heredity
81(1): 17-24.
Troyer, A. and J. Larkins (1985). Selection for early flowering in corn: 10 late synthetics.
Crop Sci 25(4): 695-697.
Tuncay,
.,
M.K.
Bozokalfa
and
D.
Eiyok
(2005).
Ana
rnvekincirnOlarakYetitirilenBazTatlMsreitlerindeKoannAgronomikve
TeknolojikzelliklerininBelirlenmesi.Egeniv .ZiraatFak. Derg, 42(1): 47-58.
Wahba, B.K. (2009). Genetic studies on Zea mays var. saccharata. M. Sc. Thesis in
Agric. Sci. Vegetable Crops Fac. of Agric., EL- Minia Univ. Egypt.
Wahba, B.K., H.E.M. Zaki, Y.M.M. Moustafa, Y.Y. Abdel Ati, and S.H. Gadelhak
(2015). Quantitative inheritance of total soluble solids and flour color in sweet-field
corn crosses. Nature and Science, 13(12): 137-145.
Walden, D.B. (1978). Maize Breeding and Genetics. John Wiley and Sons Inc, New York.

3122
( )

3123 .
.

%5..5 %41.01 .

.
3124
.

)0213( 613 -092 : )0(02

316