IJPBCS

International Journal of Plant Breeding and Crop Science

Vol. 4(2), pp. 225-230, June, 2017. www.premierpublishers.org.ISSN: 2167-0449

Research Article

Estimate of Genetic Variability Parameters among

Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Genotypes in Ethiopia
Zekeria Yusuf1*, Habtamu Zeleke2, Wassu Mohammed2, Shimelis Hussein3, Arno Hugo4
1BiologyDepartment, Haramaya University, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia
2Schoolof Plant Science, Haramaya University, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia
3Department of Crop Science, University of Kwazulu-Natal, Durban, Republic of South Africa
4Department of Food Science, University of Free State, Bloemfontein, Republic of South Africa

Sixteen groundnut genotypes (including local check) were evaluated for quantitative parameters.
The crop was sown during 2015 wet season in Ethiopia across four locations. The experiment
was laid out in Randomized Complete Block Design with three replications. Twelve quantitative
parameters were studied. The analysis of variance revealed the prevalence of significant
difference among the genotypes for all studied parameters. Based on mean performance of
genotypes Beha gudo, Manipeter and Werer-962 were found to be best for grain yield in kg/ha.
High to moderate estimates of genotypic coefficient of variation (GCV) and phenotypic coefficient
of variation (PCV) were exhibited by all characters except for SHP and NSP indicating that those
characters could be used as selection indices for crop improvement. High heritability was
observed for 100SW (91.2%), AGBP (90.3%), NBP (90.2%), PH (89.4%), NMP (86.8%), NSPOD
(85.7%), HI (83.7%) and KY (79.7%) accompanied by high genetic advance indicating the
predominant role of additive gene action and the possibilities of effective selection for the
improvement of groundnut genotypes based on these characters. Low broad sense heritability
and low genetic advance was observed only for SHP and NSP indicating low genetic potentials
for these characters and non-additive gene effect prevails.

Key words: groundnut, genotypes, additive effect, heritability, genetic advance.

INTRODUCTION

Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) is the fourth largest
oilseed crop in the world and is cultivated in more than 100
countries, with the annual production of 35.5 million tons
(FAO, 2009). Groundnut is used for oilseed, food and
animal feed, as a legume it improves soil health through
nitrogen fixation as well as a source of fuel for rural
population. Thus, groundnut cultivation contributes to the
sustainability to mixed crop-livestock production systems,
the most predominant system of the semi-arid areas
(Upadhyaya et al., 2006). Groundnut seed contains 40-
60% oil, 20-40% protein in kernels and 10-20%
carbohydrate. It provides 564 kcal of energy from 100g of
Estimate of Genetic Variability Parameters among Groundnut (Arachishypogaea L.) Genotypes in Ethiopia
kernels (Jambunathan, 1991). Groundnut oil is an
excellent cooking medium because of its high smoking
point (Singh and Diwakar, 1993); as a base for
confectioneries and to make groundnut butter which is
used as spread for bread or biscuits, in cookies,
sandwiches, candies and frostings or icings.
*Corresponding Author: Zekeria Yusuf, Biology
Department, Haramaya University, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia.
Email: zakoyusuf@yahoo.com
Yusuf et al. 226
Recently, it is also used as a substitute for milk in the
preparation of "makiyato" during fasting days in Ethiopia.
Groundnut is also used to prepare childrens food (fafa)
and used daily as roasted ocholonie or Kolo (Chalaet
al., 2012). In addition, the groundnut kernels contain many
health enhancing nutrients namely vitamins: vitamin E,
niacin, riboflavin, thiamine, pantothenic acid, vitamin B-6,
folates; minerals like calcium, phosphorus, magnesium,
zinc, iron, potassium; antioxidants like p-coumaric acid
and resveratrol and are rich in mono-unsaturated fatty
acids. Groundnut is a dietary source of biologically active
polyphenols, flavonoids, and isoflavones. As they are
highly nutritious, groundnut products can be promoted as
nutritional foods to fight energy, protein, and micronutrient
malnutrition among the poor.
Groundnut has a narrow genetic base as a result of its
monophyletic origin, self- pollination and lack of gene flow,
due to origin of the crop through a single hybridization
event between two diploid species followed by a
chromosome doubling and crossing barriers with wild
diploid species (due to ploidy differences). Moreover, to
improve and sustain the yield of groundnut, plant
breeders should have a better understanding of the
genetic variability of yield and its components and
development of high yielding cultivars with resistance to
aflatoxin contamination (Zaman et al., 2010). Climate
change and global warming is bringing about genetic
erosion. There is therefore a need to study the genetic
variability of plants for the efficient management and the
conservation of races and their optimum utilization in plant
breeding. Genetic variability is essential for initiating an
effective and successful breeding programs thus it is
imperative to study the level of genetic variability available
in the existing genotype. The studies of heritability
estimates with genetic advance further clarify the nature of
characters which can be improved through selection.
Several studies on groundnut have been carried out,
however, there is limited information regarding its
genetics, breeding and production, especially genetic
improvement under rain fed conditions in Ethiopia. That is
why the present study has been designed to study genetic
variability parameters in groundnut genotypes grown in
Ethiopia.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The experiment was carried out across four locations viz
Babile, Fedis, Hirna and Mechara in 2015 growing season
in Ethiopia under rain fed condition. The experimental
materials consisted of sixteen groundnut genotypes
including locals and varieties which were released by
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR)
between 1976 to 2012. The treatment consists of sixteen
Estimate of Genetic Variability Parameters among Groundnut (Arachishypogaea L.) Genotypes in Ethiopia
groundnut genotypes with three replications in four
locations was planted in a randomized complete block
design (RCBD) so that the total number of treatments was
being16genotypes 3 replications x 4 location=192.Each
entry was planted in a plot having 2 rows of 3-meter length.
The spacing between rows and plants was 60cm and
15cm respectively. Each row had 12 plants. Two seeds
were planted in each hole after emergence one of it was
removed. The spacing between plots was 1m. The net plot
size was 5.4 m2. Following land preparation, groundnut
seeds was planted and the treatments were being looked
after for recommended agronomic practices including
weeding, hoeing, fertilizer application and the necessary
plant protection measures.
Data were recorded for 12agromorphological characters
viz. plant height (PH, cm), number of mature pods per plant
(NMP), number of branches per plant (NBP), above
ground biomass per plant (AGBP, g), pod weight per plant
(PWP, g), number of seeds per plant (NSP), seed weight
per plant (SWP, g), shell percentage (SHP %), 100 seed
weight (100SW,g), Harvest index (HI%), number of seeds
per pod (NSPOD), kernel yield per hectare(KY, kg/ha).The
pods from entire plot were harvested and immature pods
were removed. The mature pods were air dried, cleaned
and weighed. The data were recorded on five randomly
selected plants in each entry or replication. A random
sample of 100 seeds was used to record 100 seed weight.
Matured pod sample of 100g was used to estimate shelling
percentage according to Misra et al. (2000) as:
kernel weight(g)
Shelling percent= x100.
pod weight (g)
Harvest index was calculated as
SWP
HI = 100
Total dry biomass weight
Combined data of each genotype across the four
locations, were subjected to analysis of variance using
SAS software version 9.1 (SAS Institute, 2000) to estimate
the genetic variability parameters. Phenotypic, genotypic
and environmental variances were computed from the
respective mean squares following the procedures
suggested by Singh and Chaundhary (1979) and Allard
(1960).
The following linear model was used to perform the
analyses:
Yrge = + g +e +r (e ) + g e + rge
where Yrge is the measured trait of genotype in replication
rat location e; is the grand mean; g &e are the genotype
and location main effects; r ( e ) is the replication effect
nested within location; g e is the interaction between
genotype and location; and rge is residual or error of plot
containing genotypes in replication r and environment e.

Genotype was considered as fixed while location and the
interaction (genXenv) were considered as random effects.
Total variation was partitioned into phenotypic ( 2 p ),
genotypic (2 g ) and environmental (2 e ) variance based on
expectation of mean square for respective source of
variation described in ANOVA. 2 e =mse;
Heritability in broad sense (H 2 %) was estimated according
to Falconer 1989 as:
2
g
H 2 = 2 x 100 where:H 2 : heritability.
p
2g : genotypic variance; 2p : phenotypic variance
wereobtained from analysis of variance table according to
Comstock and Robinson (1952).
Genotypic coefficient of variation: The magnitude of
genetic coefficient of variation, existing in a trait was
estimated by formula given by Burton (1952) GCV (%) =
2 g
X100
x The mean, range, coefficients of genotypic and phenotypic
Phenotypic coefficient of variation: The magnitude of
phenotypic coefficient of variation, existing in a trait was
estimated by formula given by Burton (1952.)
2 p
PCV= x100 GCV and PCV values were categorized as
x
low when less than 10%, moderate, 10-20% and high,
greater than 20% as described by Deshmukh et al.
1986.The analyses of variance were used to estimate
genetic variances using the method of moments (Searle et
al., 1992), i.e., the mean squares were equated to their
respective expectations and the estimates of variance for
each population were computed as follows:
(MSgMSge)
2 g = as variance among genotypes within a
re
population;
MSg
2 p = as phenotypic variance. Heritability percentage
re
was categorized as low when less than 40%, medium, 40
59%, moderately high, 60-79% and very high, 80% and
above as indicated by Singh 2001.
Genetic advance (GA) was calculated with the method
suggested by Allard (1960); Singh and Chaudhury
1985:GA=K p H 2 : Where, GA: genetic advance; K:
constant = 2.06 at 5% selection intensity; p: square root
of phenotypic variance; H 2 : Heritability in broad sense.GA
GA
as % of mean(GAM) = x100; Genetic advance (GA),
x SWP was much greater than GCV suggesting large
expressed as a percentage of mean, was categorized as
high when it is above 20%, moderate, 10-20% and low
when it is less than 10% based on Johnson et al. (1955).
RESULT AND DISCUSSIONS
According to Duncan's Multiple Range Test (Table 1),
means followed by same letter within a column are not
significantly different from one another. From observations
in table 1. it can be generalized that while some pairs of
means were significantly different that is differentiating the
Estimate of Genetic Variability Parameters among Groundnut (Arachishypogaea L.) Genotypes in Ethiopia
Int. J. Plant Breed. Crop Sci. 227
best performing and the least performing genotypes, while
other means were not significant that means there were no
clear differences among genotypes for characters
evaluated, thus further differentiation requires the use of
other analytical methods. The results of combined analysis
of variance showing mean squares for twelve
agromorphological traits of groundnut combined across
four locations are presented in Table 2. Highly significant
differences were detected among the genotypes, locations
and genotype x location interactions for all the traits
evaluated for 16 groundnut genotypes indicating the
prevalence of genetic variability. Similar result was
reported by Zaman et al., 2011 except for PH, NMP and
AGBP where genotype x location interaction was not
significant showing little influence of environment on such
characters. The present study disagrees with the work
reported by Sabiel et al, 2014 who non-significant
differences for 100SW and pod yield.
variations, heritability and genetic advance of various
characters are given in the Table 3. Generally, the
magnitude of PVC was higher than GVC for all the
characters indicating the influence of environment upon
these traits. The genotypic coefficient of variation provides
a measure to compare genetic variability present in
quantitative parameters (Maurya et al., 2014). The GCV
ranged from 4.4% for SHP to 27.8% for AGBP. High GCV
was observed for AGBP (27.8%), NBP (26.5%), 100SW
(23.2%), HI (21.0%) and KY (20.0%) indicating high
degree of genetic variability and close relationship with
yield character thus very useful for screening yield traits.
Similar results were also obtained by Yadlapalli
2014.Coefficient of variation at phenotypic and genotypic
levels were relatively high for NMP, NBP, AGBP, 100SW,
HI and KY traits. Similar findings were reported by Zaman
et al. 2011 and Alam et al. 1985. Moderate GCV was
obtained for NMP, PWP, SWP and NSPOD. The finding is
comparable to the report of Maurya et al., 2014 except for
PWP and PH. They have suggested low GCV for PWP and
PH.
Phenotypic coefficient variation, which measures total
relative variation, was high for most of the characters
except for PH, NSP, SHP and NSPOD. Similar result was
reported by Maurya et al. 2014 except for PH. PWP and
environmental influence. Such large environmental effect
may show the influence of environmental factors on oil
traits. On the other hand, difference between PCV and
GCV for NMP and KY was very small suggesting less
environmental influence on the expression of such
characters. This finding is in contrary to previous report by
Yadlapalli 2014 who suggested very low differences
between genotypic and phenotypic coefficient of variation
for 100SW and NBP. Further study is needed to confirm
the influence of environment on agromorphological
characters of groundnut by using diverse locations. The
Yusuf et al. 228

Table 1. Comparison of mean performance of 16 groundnut genotypes evaluated for 12 agromorphological Characters

Genotype PH NMP NBP AGBP PWP SWP NSP SHP 100SW HI NSPOD KY
NC-343 30.0CD 51.1AB 15.6A 79.6B 42.9ABC 38.4AB 74.6A 62.24BC 51.9FG 23.5CDE 1.48DEFG 4256.4EF
G FG BCD EF AB BCDE BCDE B A
Baha 25.6 32.1 12.7 40.3 45.6 32.5 60.6 63.87 83.8 36.6A 1.7BC 5599.5A
gudo
Baha jidu 36.6A 53.8A 13.8ABC 84.6AB 38.7BCD 33.5ABCD 77.6A 60.7 C 45.0KL 22.4EF 1.41G 4772.3
Bulki 28.8DEF 46.5ABC 12.0CD 74.3BC 31.8DE 29.1CDEF 68.5ABC 60.6C 44.0L 20.6EF 1.45FG 3441.3GHI
Fetene 26.4FG 36.3EF 6.8G 39.5EF 37.3CDE 34.5ABCD 67.4ABC 68.3A 48.2I 35.7A 1.59CD 4482.4
Lote 30.6BCD 49.9AB 11.1DE 79.8B 38.7BCD 36.9ABC 67.0ABCD 60.5C 47.9I 22.8DEF 1.48EFG 3861.1FG
Manipeter 30.8BCD 47.4ABC 11.2DE 76.9BC 48.1A 41.0A 69.7AB 63.27BC 70.2D 27.1BC 1.6DE 5483.9AB
Oldhale 31.5 44.7BCD 14.7AB 83.8AB 33.3DE 32.2BCDE 66.2ABCDE 51.2E 46.1J 19.6F 1.49DEFG 3255.3HI
Roba 29.6CDE 51.8AB 14.6AB 79.1B 46.1AB 40.7A 75.4A 61.47BC 52.5F 24.8CD 1.5DEFG 4783.1CD
Sedi 32.9B 31.2FG 6.4G 42.0EF 30.2E 27.0DEF 70.4AB 63.99B 42.3M 29.5B 2.1A 2454.8J
Shulamith 21.5H 38.3DEF 9.5EF 61.5CD 44.5ABC 23.2F 57.7CDE 54.5D 49.5H 22.9DEF 1.5DEF 3526.9GH
Tole-1 30.4BCD 38.1DEF 13.5ABC 96.2A 48.4A 36.3ABC 55.3DE 60.7C 81.3B 22.4DEF 1.43FG 4129.6EF
Tole-2 31.1BCD 33.7EFG 13.3BCD 87.1AB 48.2A 34.0ABCD 57.0CDE 60.3C 71.3C 24.0CDE 1.5DEFG 4173.3EF
Werer- 27.1EFG 41.7CDE 7.5FG 34.7F 32.1DE 35.0ABC 70.4AB 69.2A 45.7JK 36.8A 1.8B 3204.2HI
961
Werer- 30.2CD 46.5ABC 14.0ABC 71.8BC 46.0AB 38.9AB 72.6A 64.04B 57.2E 33.6A 1.47EFG 5040.9BC
962
Werer- 29.8CD 25.7G 6.2G 51.6DE 29.9E 25.9EF 54.6E 60.3C 50.9G 25.7CD 2.0A 2976.1I
963
where PH: plant height; NMPP: number of mature pod per plant; NBP: number of branches per plant; AGBP: above ground biomass per plant; PWP:
pod weight per plant; SWP: seed weight per plant; NSP: number of seeds per plant; SHP: shelling percent; 100SW: 100 seed weight; HI: harvest index;
NSPOD: number of seeds per pod; KY: Kernel yield kg/ha. Means followed by same letter within a column are not significantly different at 0.05 probability
level based on Duncan's Multiple Range Test(DMRT).

Table 2. Combined ANOVA for 12 characters measured for 16 groundnut genotypes including local check during 2015 Ethiopian rainy season

Trait n Range mean CV std stder MSenv MSrep(env) MSgen Ms gxe MSerror
Df=3 Df=8 Df=15 Df=45 Df=120
min max
PH(cm) 192 11.5 40.8 29.55 10.84 6.07 0.44 981.38** 20.86** 136.08** 14.43 10.27
NMPP 192 12.5 87.4 41.80 23.86 13.48 0.97 225.72 518.19** 853.58** 114.06 99.51
NBP 192 4.5 24 11.43 24.37 4.48 0.32 163.39** 6.47 122.14** 11.92* 7.75
AGBP(g) 192 15.8 146.9 67.68 28.98 29.93 2.16 8556.56** 993.62* 4712.38** 459.47 384.73
PWP(g) 192 10.4 86 40.09 24.72 15.13 1.09 3451.28** 294.79** 577.56** 234.73** 98.18
SWP(g) 192 9.7 97.8 33.68 28.90 15.93 1.15 7666.76** 116.48 229.12** 183.32** 94.73
NSP 192 22 125 66.54 21.93 18.23 1.32 1298.21** 801.31** 654.91** 396.04* 212.96
SHP 192 17.1 74.3 61.58 6.24 8.00 0.58 156.23** 11.83 231.04** 143.03** 14.76
100SW(g) 192 33.9 106.5 55.48 2.32 15.77 1.14 1942.29** 4.10* 2182.13** 116.75** 1.65
HI(g) 192 9.6 61.7 26.13 17.36 8.29 0.60 274.45** 18.46 429.92** 69.87** 21.36
NSPOD 192 1.1 2.5 1.59 8.84 0.26 0.02 0.858** 0.038 0.422** 0.041** 13.41
KY(kg/ha) 192 1829 6912 4090 14.6 1255 90.6 5248668.8** 242441.8 9958634.8** 2025567.9** 356278.1
*, *** Significant at 0.05 and 0.01 probability levels, respectively. where PH: plant height; NMPP: number of mature pod per plant; NBP: number of
branches per plant; AGBP: above ground biomass per plant; PWP: pod weight per plant; SWP: seed weight per plant; NSP: number of seeds per plant;
SHP: shelling percent; 100SW: 100 seed weight; HI: harvest index; NSPOD: number of seeds per pod; KY: kernel yield (kg/ha).

high ECV observed for SWP and PWP shows that the the character for which selection is practiced, heritability
sensitivity of these characters to environmental fluctuation. has been adopted by genetic variability, which is
This finding is in good agreement with those reported Khan transmitted from parent to offspring is reflected by
et al.2000andSabielet al.2014. heritability (Maurya et al., 2014). Katiyar et al., 1974
Heritability is a measure of extent of phenotype caused by mentioned that the heritability value alone provides no
the action of gene. For making effective improvement in indication of the amount of genetic progress that would
Estimate of Genetic Variability Parameters among Groundnut (Arachishypogaea L.) Genotypes in Ethiopia
 Int. J. Plant Breed. Crop Sci. 229

Table 3. variance components and genetic parameters of 12 agromorphological traits measured for 16 groundnut genotypes

Trait mean PCV% GCV% ECV% Venv Vrep(env) Vg Vgxe Verror vp H2 b(%) GA%mean

PH 29.55 19.2 10.8 15.1 19.92 0.66 10.14 1.39 10.27 11.34 89.4 21.0
NMP 41.80 22.4 18.8 0.00 0.00 21.16 61.71 4.44 99.78 71.13 86.8 36.1
NBP 11.43 32.5 26.5 15.6 3.16 0.00 9.18 1.42 7.67 10.18 90.2 51.9
AGBP 67.68 35.4 27.8 18.5 156.0 38.06 354.41 24.91 384.73 392.70 90.3 54.5
PWP 40.09 30.5 13.3 20.0 62.92 12.29 28.57 45.52 98.18 48.13 59.4 21.2
SWP 33.68 50.8 10.4 37.0 155.5 1.36 12.15 29.53 94.73 19.09 63.6 17.0
NSP 66.54 16.9 7.0 3.8 6.54 36.77 21.57 61.03 212.96 54.58 39.5 9.0
SHP 61.58 11.5 4.4 8.4 0.27 0.00 7.33 42.82 14.58 19.25 38.1 5.6
100SW 55.48 29.4 23.2 10.9 36.39 0.15 165.77 63.76 1.65 181.84 91.2 45.7
HI 26.13 27.2 21.0 7.9 4.26 0.00 30.00 16.23 21.18 35.83 83.7 39.5
NSPOD 1.59 15.2 10.9 8.9 0.02 0.001 0.03 0.007 0.02 0.035 85.7 20.8
KY 4090 22.3 20.0 6.3 67147.9 0.00 661088.9 558801.5 349163.3 829886.2 79.7 36.6
Where PH: plant height; NMPP: number of mature pod per plant; NBP: number of branches per plant; AGBP: above ground biomass per plant; PWP:
pod weight per plant; SWP: seed weight per plant; NSP: number of seeds per plant; SHP: shelling percent; 100SW: 100 seed weight; HI: harvest index;
NSPOD: number of seeds per pod; KY: kernel yield (kg/ha). VG = Genotypic variance, VP = Phenotypic variance, GCV = Genotypic coefficient of
variation, PCV = Phenotypic coefficient of variation, H2 = Heritability in broad sense, GA = Genetic advance.

result from selecting the best genotype. However, Johnson
et al. 1955 suggested that heritability estimates along with
genetic advance would be more useful in predicting yield
under phenotypic selection than heritability estimate alone.
The combination of high heritability and genetic gains are
important indicators of the predominant role of additive
gene action for characters. In the present study, very high
heritability was observed for 100SW (91.2%), AGBP
(90.3%), NBP (90.2%), PH (89.4%), NMP (86.8%),
NSPOD (85.7%), HI (83.7%) and KY (79.7%)
accompanied by high genetic advance indicating the
predominant role of additive gene action and the
possibilities of effective selection for the improvement of
these characters. Such estimate of high heritability with
moderate to high genetic advance indicating the chance of
effective selection of these characters for improvement of
yield traits. Similar observations were made by Nath and
Alam 2002; Yadlapalli 2014 and Khote et al. (2009).
Furthermore, the result is again comparable to the
previous reports by Zaman et al. 2011 except for SWP
which was found to have the highest heritability and
genetic advance in those studies. However, in the present
study SWP found to have high heritability (63.6%) and
moderate genetic advance (17%). Predictability of high
performance and hence selection of materials based on
the above criteria may lead to successful breeding
program.
High heritability estimates generally enable the breeders
to select desired traits on the basis of phenotypic selection.
Similar finding was reported by Khan et al. 2000. The low
broad sense heritability and low genetic advance estimate
for SHP and NSP indicates low genetic potentials for these
characters. High effect of the environment in determining
measured traits and absence of predominant role of
additive gene action instead environmental factors or non-
additive gene actions (dominance and epistasis) were
more important for these characters. This result is contrary
Estimate of Genetic Variability Parameters among Groundnut (Arachishypogaea L.) Genotypes in Ethiopia
to the previous works by Zaman et al. 2011 who reported
high heritability for SHP (shelling percent).
CONCLUSIONS
The present study clearly showed that 100SW, AGBP,
NBP, PH, NMP, NSPOD, HI and KY were more variable
characters among the evaluated genotypes. All yield
contributing characters except number of seeds per plant
(NSP) and shelling percentage(SHP) exhibited high
heritability and also high genetic advance. Therefore, such
characters have potential to be used for phenotypic
selection and other groundnut breeding programs.
According to the present study100SW, AGBP, NBP, PH,
NMP, NSPOD, HI, SWP are recommended as important
selection criteria for breeding program of groundnut.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Authors are grateful to Haramaya University School of
graduate Studies and HU Research Office for their funding
support; Mechara and Pawe Agricultural Research
Centers for their provision of plantation land and other
supports in agronomic management and data collections.
REFERENCES
Alam MS, Rahman ARMS and Khair ABMA (1985).
Genetic variability and character association in
groundnut (Arachis hypogaeaL.). Bangladesh J. of
Agric., 10(4): 9-16.
Allard RW (1960). Principles of plant breeding. John Wiley
and Sons, New York.
Yusuf et al. 230
Chala A, Mohammed A, Ayalew A, Skinnes H (2012).
Natural occurrence of aflatoxins in groundnut (Arachis
hypogaea L.) from eastern Ethiopia.
Comstock RR and Robinson HF (1952). Genetic
parameters, their estimation and significance, proc. 6TH
international Grassland Congress. Vol. 1, Nat. publ. Co.
Wash., D.C., U.S.A., pp: 248-291.
Deshmukh SNN, Basu MS, and Reddy PS (1986).
Genetic Variability, Character Association and Path Co
efficient of Quantitative Traits in Virginia Bunch
Varieties of Groundnut. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 56:816-
821.
Falconer DS and Mackay TFC (1996). Introduction to
quantitative genetics. 4th Ed. Longman Scientific and
Tech. England.
FAO (2009). Food and Agricultural Organization of the
United Nation, FAO Statistical Database
http://faostat.fao.org/faostat/collections? Subset
agriculture).
Jambunathan R (1991). Groundnut quality
characteristics, in Uses of Tropical Grain Legumes:
Proceedings of a Consultants Meeting, March 2730,
1989 (Patancheru: ICRISAT), 96137.
Johnson HW, Robinson HF and Comstoks RE (1955).
Estimates of genetics and environmental variability in
soybean. Agronomic Journal. 45: 374-82.
Katiyar RP, Mishra SN and Chauhan YS (1974). Genetic
variability, heritability and genetic advance of yield
and its components in Indian mustard. Indian J.of
Agric. Sc. 44(5):291-93.
Khan A, Khan MI,andTahir M(2000). Genetic Variability
and Criterion for the Selection of High Yielding Peanut
Genotypes. Pakistan J. Agric. Res. 16(1):1-12.
Khote AC, Bendle VW, Bhave SG and Patil PP (2009).
Genetic variability, heritability and genetic advance
in some exotic genotype of groundnut (Arachis
hypogaea L.), Crop Research, 37(1,2 and 3) 186-191.
Maurya MK, Rai PK, Kumar A, Singh BA and Chaurasia
AK (2014). Study on Genetic Variability and Seed
Quality of Groundnut (Arachishypogaea L.) Genotypes.
IJETA, 4(6): 818:823.
Misra JB, Ghosh PK, Dayal D and Mathur RS (2000).
Agronomic, nutritional and physical characteristics of
some Indian groundnut cultivars. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 70:
741746.
Nath UK and Alam MS (2002). Genetic variability,
heritability and genetic advance of yield and related traits
of Groundnut (Arachis hypogaeaL.) J. of
Bio.Sc.,2(11):762-764.
Sabiel SA, Ismail MI, Abdalla E and Osman KA (2014).
Genetic Variation of Groundnut (Arachis
hypogaeaL.) Genotypes in Semi-Arid Zone of
Sudan. I. J. Env. 3(3):16-23.
SAS Institute (2000). Statistical Analysis Software (SAS)
Users Guide Version 9.1. SAS Institute, Inc, Cary, NC,
USA.
Estimate of Genetic Variability Parameters among Groundnut (Arachishypogaea L.) Genotypes in Ethiopia
Searle SR, Casella G and McCullock CE (1992). Variance
components. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Singh RK and Chaudhury BD (1979). Biometrical methods
in quantitative genetic analysis. Kalyani Publication,
New Delhi. 53 p.
Singh F and Diwakar B (1993). Nutritive Value and Uses
of Pigeon pea and Groundnut. Manual. Patancheru:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid
Tropics.
Singh RK and Chaudhary BD. (1985). Biometrical
methods in quantitative genetic analysis.
Singh BD, (2001). Plant Breeding: Principles and Methods.
Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi, India.
Upadhyaya HD, Reddy LJ, Gowda CLL, Singh S. (2006).
Identification of diverse groundnut germplasm: Sources
of early maturity in a core collection. Field Crop. Res.97:
261-271.
Yadlapalli S (2014). Genetic Variability and Character
Association Studies in Groundnut (Arachis hypogaeaL.).
IJPAES, 4(4): 298-300.
Zaman MA, Tuhina-KhatunM, Bhuiyan MMH,
Moniruzzamn M, Yousu MN (2010). Genetic divergence
in groundnut (ArachishypogaeaL.). Bangladesh. J. Pl.
Breed. Genet.23(1): 45- 49.
Zaman MA, Tuhina-Khatun M, Ullah MZ, Moniruzzamn M
and Alam KH (2011). Genetic Variability and Path
Analysis of Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). The
Agriculturists, 9(1 and 2):29-36.
Accepted 19 June, 2017
Citation: Yusuf Z, Zeleke H, Mohammed W, Hussein S,
Hugo A (2017). Estimate of Genetic Variability Parameters
among Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Genotypes in
Ethiopia 4(2): 225-230.
Copyright: 2017 Yusuf et al. This is an open-access
article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original author and source are cited.