Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 13 No. sp2 (2026): Recent Advances in Agriculture

Assessment of morpho-physiological traits for genetic diversity in field pea (Pisum sativum L.) under timely and late sown conditions

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.13289
Submitted
20 December 2025
Published
30-04-2026

Abstract

A total of 78 field pea genotypes, including four check varieties, were evaluated for morpho-physiological traits under timely and late sown conditions to assess trait associations and genetic diversity. Correlation analysis indicated that under both sowing environments, seed yield per plant (SYP) was strongly and positively associated with effective pods per plant (EPP), biological yield per plant (BYP) and plant height (PH). Under late-sown conditions, 100-seed weight (HSW) also showed a significant positive relationship with seed yield (SY). These associations suggest that selection for higher EPP, biological yield (BY), PH and HSW would be advantageous for yield improvement under late sowing. Furthermore, these traits exhibited strong inter-relationships with one another across both environments. Path coefficient analysis revealed that EPP and BYP had major direct and indirect effects on SY under timely sowing, while under late sowing, EPP, BYP, HSW and PH were the key contributors. Therefore, emphasis on these traits is critical when formulating selection strategies for developing high-yielding field pea cultivars. Mahalanobis D² analysis grouped the 78 genotypes into five distinct multi-genotypic clusters under both sowing conditions. Variation in genotype distribution across environments highlighted the significant influence of environmental conditions on genotype performance.

References

  1. 1. Wendy JD, Foster LM, Tyler RT. Review of the health benefits of peas (Pisum sativum L.). Br J Nutr. 2012;108(Suppl 1):S3–S10. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114512000852
  2. 2. AICRP on MULLaRP. Project coordinator’s report of AICRP on MULLaRP. Kanpur: Indian Institute of Pulses Research; 2024.
  3. 3. Department of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Government of India. Agricultural statistics at a glance 2024 [Internet]. New Delhi: Government of India; 2025 [cited 2026 Apr 5]. Available from: Agricultural-Statistics-at-a-Glance-2024_कृषि-सांख्यिकी-एक-झलक-2024.pdf.
  4. 4. Bueckert RA, Wagenhoffer S, Hnatowich G, Warkentin TD. Effect of heat and precipitation on pea yield and reproductive performance in the field. Can J Plant Sci. 2015;95(4):629–39. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjps-2014-342
  5. 5. Sharma V, Singh CM, Chugh V, Kamaluddin, Prajapati PK, Mishra A, et al. Morpho-physiological and biochemical responses of field pea genotypes under terminal heat stress. Plants. 2023;12(2):256. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12020256
  6. 6. Jiang Y, Lindsay DL, Davis AR, Wang Z, MacLean DE, Warkentin TD, et al. Impact of heat stress on pod-based yield components in field pea (Pisum sativum L.). J Agron Crop Sci. 2019;206(1):76–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/jac.12365
  7. 7. Sharma V, Dubey RB, Khan R. Genotype × environment interaction on stability of grain yield and physio-biochemical traits in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Bangladesh J Bot. 2019;48(4):1143–51. https://doi.org/10.3329/bjb.v48i4.49070
  8. 8. Seepal YS, Sharma V, Singh CM, Shukla G, Gangwar V, Kamaluddin, et al. Application of stress indices to identify terminal heat tolerant genotypes in field pea (Pisum sativum var. arvense). Legume Res. 2025;48(1):20–25. https://doi.org/10.18805/LR-4888
  9. 9. DNA Fingerprinting and Species Identification Uncovers the Genetic Diversity of Katsouni Pea in the Greek Islands Amorgos and Schinoussa. Plants. 2020;9(4):479. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9040479
  10. 10. Bharti B, Kumar R, Bind HN, Kumar A, Sharma V. Correlation and path analysis for yield and yield components in black gram [Vigna mungo (l.) Hepper]. Prog Res. 2013;8:473–76.
  11. 11. Sharma V, Paswan SK, Singh VK, Khandagale S. Correlation and path coefficient analysis of economically important traits in lentil (Lens culinaris medik.) germplasm. Bioscan. 2014;9(2):819–22.
  12. 12. Kamaluddin, Kishor R, Sharma V, Saini HK, Shukla G. ariability studies for yield and its component traits in Lentil (Lens culinaris Medikus spp. Culinaris) under Bundelkhand region. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2020;9(6):1436–41.
  13. 13. Kishor R, Kamaluddin, Sharma V. Correlation and Path analysis for yield and its component traits in Lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.) in Bundelkhand. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2020;9(6):2175–78.
  14. 14. Sanwal SK, Singh B, Singh V, Mann A. Multivariate analysis and its implication in breeding of desired plant type in garden pea (Pisum sativum). Indian J Agric Sci. 2015;85(10):1298–302. https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v85i10.52263
  15. 15. Adams MW. Basis of Yield Component Compensation in Crop Plants With Special Reference to the Field Bean, Phaseolus vulgaris1. Crop Sci. 1967;7(5):505–10. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1967.0011183X000700050030x
  16. 16. Barr HD, Weatherley PE. A re-examination of the relative turgidity technique for estimating water deficit in leaves. Aust J Biol Sci. 1962;15(3):413–28. https://doi.org/10.1071/BI9620413
  17. 17. Wright S. Correlation and causation. J Agric Res. 1921;20:557–85.
  18. 18. Dewey DR, Lu KH. A correlation and path coefficient analysis of components of crested wheatgrass seed production1. Agron J. 1959(9);51:515–18. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1959.00021962005100090002x
  19. 19. Bhuvaneswari S, Sharma SK, Punitha P, Shashidhar KS, Naveenkumar KL, Prakash N. Evaluation of morphological diversity of field pea [Pisum sativum subsp.arvense (L.)] germplasm under sub-tropical climate of Manipur. Legume Res. 2017;40(2):215–23. https://doi.org/10.18805/lr.v0iOF.10756
  20. 20. Pratap V, Sharma V, Kamaluddin, Shukla G. Assessment of Genetic Variability and Relationship between Different Quantitative Traits in Field Pea (Pisum sativum var. arvense) Germplasm. Legume Res. 2024;47(6):905–10. https://doi.org/10.18805/LR-4610
  21. 21. Satyendra, Sharma V, Kumar M, Mishra A, Kamaluddin, Sharma P, et al. Assessment of field pea (Pisum sativum var. arvense) genotypes for morphological traits, quality traits and molecular characterization using SSR marker. Legume Res. 2026. https://doi.org/10.18805/LR-5385
  22. 22. Srivastava A, Sharma A, Singh T, Kumar R. Correlation coefficient and path coefficient in field pea (Pisum sativum L.). Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2018;7(2):549–53. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2018.702.069
  23. 23. Ton A, Karakoy T, Anlarsal AE, Turkeri M. Genetic variability, heritability and path analysis in field pea (Pisum sativum L.). Fresenius Environ Bull. 2018;27(4):2275–79.
  24. 24. Singh S, Singh B, Sharma VR, Verma V, Kumar M. Character association and path analysis in diverse genotypes of pea. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2019;8(2):706–13. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2019.802.082
  25. 25. Prasad D, Verma OP, Lal K, Verma H, Jaiswal A, Yadav MK. Identification of elite genotypes for certain quantitative traits in field pea (Pisum sativum L. var. arvense) . J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2019;8(3):498–505.
  26. 26. Pratap V, Sharma V, Kumar H, Kamaluddin, Shukla G, Kumar M. Multivariate Analysis of Quantitative Traits in Field Pea (Pisum sativum var. arvense). Legume Res. 2024;47(6):917–21. https://doi.org/10.18805/LR-4604
  27. 27. Khan MRA, Mahbub MM, Reza MA, Shirazy BJ, Mahmud F. Selection of Field Pea (Pisum sativum L.) Genotypes through Multivariate Analysis. Sci Agric. 2016;16 (3):98–103. https://doi.org/10.15192/PSCP.SA.2016.16.3.98103
  28. 28. Rahul VP, Bhushan B, Kumar R, Krishna R. Genetic divergence analysis of yield and its contributing traits in tall field Pea (Pisum sativum L.). Int J Agric Inv. 2017;2(1):60–63. https://doi.org/10.46492/IJAI/2017.2.1.14
  29. 29. Lal K, Kumar R, Singh V, Chaudhary AK, Yadav H, Kumar A. Evaluation of Genetic Divergence for Grain Yield and Its Contributing Traits in Field pea (Pisum sativum L. var. arvense). Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2018;7(6):1821–26. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2018.706.217
  30. 30. Singh SP, Jeena AS, Kumar R, Sachan JN. Variation for quality parameters and fatty acids in Brassica and related species. Agric Sci Dig. 2002;22(3):205–06.
  31. 31. Endres G, Kandel H. Field pea production [internet]. Fargo (ND): North Dakota State University Extension; [cited 2026 Apr 6]. Available from: https://www.ndsu.edu/agriculture/extension/publications/field-pea-production.
  32. 32. Mohapatra C, Chand R, Tiwari JK, Singh AK. Effect of heat stress during flowering and pod formation in pea (Pisum sativum L.) . Physiol Mol Biol Plants. 2019;26:1119–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12298-020-00803-4
  33. 33. Olle M, Williams IH, Rosa E, Tamm S. Finding best field pea (Pisum sativum L.) cultivars for breeding in Northern climatic conditions. Acta Agric Scand B Soil Plant Sci. 2020;70(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/09064710.2019.1660400
  34. 34. Parihar AK, Hazra KK, Lamichaney A, Sen Gupta D, Kumar J, Mishra RK, et al. Multi-location evaluation of field pea in Indian climates: eco phenological dynamics, crop-environment relationships and identification of mega-environments. Int J Biometeorol. 2024;68:1973–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-024-02720-7
  35. 35. Singh S, Singh L, Rahul VP, Chandra H. Genetic variability and divergence in field pea. J Prog Agric. 2013;4:28–30.
  36. 36. Yadav I, Sharma V, Kumar M, Yadav LP, Mishra A, Singh V, Singh Dhanda P, Yadav A, Yadav M, Singh SK, Kamaluddin, Prajapati PK, Kaushik P, Gangwar V. Assessment of gene action and identification of heterotic hybrids for enhancing yield in field pea. Horticulturae. 2023;9(9):997. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae9090997

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.