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

Research Articles

Vol. 12 No. sp1 (2025): Recent Advances in Agriculture by Young Minds - II

Magnitude and impact of genetic heterogeneity on nutritional and fodder quality traits in segregating population of fodder maize (Zea mays L.)

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.9187
Submitted
29 April 2025
Published
27-08-2025 — Updated on 29-09-2025
Versions

Abstract

Green fodder, a vital and cost-effective source of animal nutrition, plays a crucial role in sustaining livestock productivity. However, the limited availability of nutritionally rich green fodder poses a major constraint in India, underscoring the need for genetic improvement in forage crops, such as maize. To address this, the present investigation focused on evaluating genetic variability in F3 progenies segregating for biomass yield and nutritional quality traits in fodder maize. The study revealed that several progenies exhibited significantly higher mean values for key traits compared to the better parent, African Tall. High heritability and genetic advance were recorded for plant height (PH), leaf length (LL), leaf breadth (LB), internode length (INL), crude protein (CP), acid detergent fiber (ADF), dry matter yield (DMY) and green fodder yield (GFY), indicating the predominance of additive gene action and the effectiveness of selection based on these traits. Correlation analysis revealed that all biomass yield components were positively correlated with GFY, except for leaf stem ratio (LSR), which showed a significant negative correlation. Nutritional traits, such as CP and ADF showed no significant association with GFY, while crude fiber (CF) and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) exhibited significant negative correlation. Notably, CF, ADF and NDF were positively correlated with each other but negatively associated with CP. DMY, PH and stem girth (SG), demonstrated significant positive correlation, as well as a high positive direct effect on GFY, indicating a true relationship that could be taken as a component trait for GFY improvement. Therefore, a selection index comprising traits such as PH, LL, LB, SG, INL, CP and DMY would be effective in improving both biomass yield and nutritional quality in fodder maize.

References

  1. 1. Ghosh PK, Palsaniya DR, Srinivasan R. Forage research in India: Issues and strategies. Agric Res J. 2016;53(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.5958/2395-146X.2016.00001.6
  2. 2. Vijay D, Gupta CK, Malaviya DR. Innovative technologies for quality seed production and vegetative multiplication in forage grasses. Curr Sci. 2018;148–54. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26493473
  3. 3. Raj AK, Raj RM, Kunhamu TK, Jamaludheen V, Chichaghare AR. Management of tree fodder banks for quality forage production and carbon sequestration in humid tropical cropping systems–An overview. Indian J Anim Sci. 2023;93(1):10–22. https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v93i1.120692
  4. 4. Singh DN, Bohra JS, Tyagi V, Singh T, Banjara TR, Gupta G. A review of India’s fodder production status and opportunities. Grass Forage Sci. 2022;77(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/gfs.12561
  5. 5. Chaudhary DP, Jat SL, Kumar R, Kumar A, Kumar B. Fodder quality of maize: Its preservation. In: Chaudhary DP, Kumar S, Langyan S, editors. Maize: Nutrition dynamics and novel uses [Internet]. New Delhi: Springer India; 2014. p. 153–60. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-1623-0_13
  6. 6. Erenstein O, Jaleta M, Sonder K, Mottaleb K, Prasanna BM. Global maize production, consumption and trade: Trends and R & D implications. Food Secur. 2022;14(5):1295–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-022-01288-7
  7. 7. Karnatam KS, Mythri B, Un Nisa W, Sharma H, Meena TK, Rana P, et al. Silage maize as a potent candidate for sustainable animal husbandry development—Perspectives and strategies for genetic enhancement. Front Genet. 2023;14:1150132. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2023.1150132
  8. 8. Kapoor R, Batra C. Genetic variability and association studies in maize (Zea mays L.) for green fodder yield and quality traits. Electron J Plant Breed. 2015;6(1):233–40.
  9. 9. Kapoor R. Variability and character association studies in fodder maize (Zea mays L.) hybrids. Forage Res. 2017;43(1):67–69.
  10. 10. Rathod SD, Shinde GC, Shinde SD. Genetic variability and path coefficient analysis studies in forage maize genotypes (Zea mays L.). J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2021;10(1):2764–68. https://doi.org/10.22271/chemi.2021.v9.i1ao.11672
  11. 11. Pavithra A, Ganesan KN, Meenakumari B, Sivakumar SD. Genetic studies on green fodder yield and quality traits in fodder maize (Zea mays L.). Electron J Plant Breed. 2022;13(2):432–39. https://doi.org/10.37992/2022.1302.064
  12. 12. Palaniyappan S, Ganesan KN, Manivannan N, Ravichandran V, Senthil N. Multi trait genotype-ideotype distance index- A tool for identification of elite parental inbreds for developing heterotic hybrids of fodder maize (Zea mays L.). Electron J Plant Breed. 2023;14(3):841–49. https://doi.org/10.37992/2023.1403.098
  13. 13. Palaniyappan S, Ganesan KN, Manivannan N, Ravichandran V, Senthil N. Genetic distance as a predictor of heterosis in single cross hybrids of fodder maize (Zea mays L.). Electron J Plant Breed. 2023;14(2):625–32. https://doi.org/10.37992/2023.1402.076
  14. 14. Naharudin NS, Sin MA, Saleh G. Genetic variance and correlation of forage yield and quality traits in tropically adapted maize. Sains Malays. 2021;50:45–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/jsm-2021-5001-05
  15. 15. Yadav B, Nagar SK, Behera K, Barela A. Features and concepts of ideotype breeding for different crops. Frontiers In Plant Breeding. 2023. p. 45–56.
  16. 16. Amegbor IK, van Biljon A, Shargie N, Tarekegne A, Labuschagne MT. Heritability and associations among grain yield and quality traits in quality protein maize (QPM) and non-QPM hybrids. Plants. 2022;11(6):713. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11060713
  17. 17. Subramani P, Kalipatty Nalliappan G, Narayana M, Natesan S. Mapping of quantitative trait loci associated with fodder quality traits in forage maize (Zea mays L.). Euphytica. 2025;221(2):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-025-03465-z
  18. 18. Burton GW. Quantitative inheritance in grasses. Proceedings of 6th International Grassland Congress. 1952;1:277-83.
  19. 19. Lush JL. Intra-sire correlations or regressions of offspring on dam as a method of estimating heritability of characteristics. J Anim Sci. 1940;1940(1):293–301. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1940.19401293x
  20. 20. Johnson HW, Robinson HF, Comstock RE. Estimates of genetic and environmental variability in soybeans. Agron J. 1955;47(7):314–18. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1955.00021962004700070009x
  21. 21. Sivasubramaniam S, Madhava Menon P. Genotypic and phenotypic variability in rice. Madras Agric J. 1973;60(9–12):1093-96.
  22. 22. Kapur SK. Elements of practical statistics. Oxford; 1981.
  23. 23. Gopinath P, Parsad R, Joseph B, Adarsh VS. GrapesAgri1: Collection of shiny apps for data analysis in agriculture. J Open Source Softw. 2021;6(63):3437. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03437
  24. 24. Manivannan N. TNAUSTAT-Statistical package. 2014.
  25. 25. Sardar Ali SA, Hidayat-ur-Rahman H ur R, Raziuddin R, Shah SS, Hassan G. Estimates of variability, heritability and genetic advance for fodder traits in two maize populations. Pak J Biol Sci. 2006;9(14):2618-23. https://doi.org/10.3923/pjbs.2006.2618.2623
  26. 26. Bertoia LM, Aulicino MB. Maize forage aptitude: Combining ability of inbred lines and stability of hybrids. Crop J. 2014;2(6):407–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cj.2014.07.002
  27. 27. Yadav R, Grewal RPS, Pahuja SK. Assessment of variability for fodder yield and its component traits in forage sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). Indian J Agric Sci. 2002;72(7):428-30.
  28. 28. Toppo R, Sahu M. Frequency distribution and genetic variability parameters assessment for forage yield attributing traits in oats (Avena sativa L.). Electron J Plant Breed. 2022;13(1):92–97. https://doi.org/10.37992/2022.1301.010
  29. 29. Behera PP, Singode A, BV B, Sarma RN. Exploring genetic variability in fodder quality of forage sorghum in the North–Eastern regions of India. Electron J Plant Breed. 2024;15(3):574–84. https://doi.org/10.37992/2024.1503.066
  30. 30. Subbulakshmi M, Ganesan KN, Iyanar K, Sivakumar SD, Ravichandran V. Studies on genetic diversity, variability and contribution of traits for green fodder yield and quality traits in Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum L. Schumach.). Madras Agric J. 2022. https://doi.org/10.29321/MAJ.10.000593
  31. 31. Thomas AM, Babu C, Iyanar K. Genetic variability and association studies in pearl millet for green fodder yield and quality traits. Electron J Plant Breed. 2018;9(3):1263–71. https://doi.org/10.5958/0975-928X.2018.00158.8
  32. 32. Lundvall JP, Buxton DR, Hallauer AR, George JR. Forage quality variation among maize inbreds: In vitro digestibility and cell‐wall components. Crop Sci. 1994;34(6):1672–78. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1994.0011183X003400060046x
  33. 33. Wolf DP, Coors JG, Albrecht KA, Undersander DJ, Carter PR. Forage quality of maize genotypes selected for extreme fiber concentrations. Crop Sci. 1993;33(6):1353–59. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1993.0011183X003300060046x
  34. 34. Jančík F, Homolka P, Čermák B, Lád F. Determination of indigestible neutral detergent fibre contents of grasses and its prediction from chemical composition. Czech J Anim Sci. 2008;53(3):128–35. https://doi.org/10.17221/2716-CJAS
  35. 35. Saiyad MM, Kumar S. Evaluation of maize genotypes for fodder quality traits and SSR diversity. J Plant Biochem Biotechnol. 2018;27(1):78–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13562-017-0418-6
  36. 36. Kumar R, Kumar P, Kaur Y, Chikkappa GK, Chaudhary DP, Goyal M, et al. Evaluation of maize hybrids for grain and fodder purpose. Range Manag Agrofor. 2018;39(2):182–90.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.