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

Research Articles

Vol. 13 No. 2 (2026)

Heterosis studies for yield-related traits in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.)

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.9524
Submitted
19 May 2025
Published
26-03-2026 — Updated on 01-04-2026
Versions

Abstract

Using a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with 3 replications, 30 F1’s and their 13 parents were evaluated at the Main Experimental Station, Department of Vegetable Science, Acharya Narendra Deva University of Agriculture and Technology, Kumarganj, Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, during the zaid seasons of 2023 and 2024. The optimum genotypes were recommended based on the findings of studies on heterosis and combining ability. To determine the best parental combination and the best-performing hybrid, the hybrids were assessed for seven distinct qualities. The best hybrid combination, both in terms of overall heterosis effects and per se performance, was NDCU-23-11 x Punjab Naveen. The cross combinations NDCU-23-11 x Punjab Naveen, VRCU-2203 x Pusa Uday and NDCU-23-11 x Pusa Uday outperformed the midparent in terms of fruit yield, while the combinations NDCU-23-11 x Pusa Uday, VRCU-2203 x Pusa Uday and VRCU-2203 x Arka Veera outperformed the standard variety in terms of heterosis. Heterosis over normal variety ranged from 15.05 to 112.31 %, whereas over better parent it ranged from 0.00 to 106.49 %. The predominance of dominant gene activation suggests the possibility of hybrid breeding for genetic enhancement in cucumbers.

References

  1. 1. Gopalakrishnan TR. Vegetable crops. In: Peter KV, Swaminathan MS, editors. Horticulture science series – 4. India: New India Publishing Agency; 2007. p. 103.
  2. 2. Tatlioglu T. Cucumber: Cucumis sativus L. In: Genetic improvement of vegetable crops; 1993. p. 197–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-040826-2.50017-5
  3. 3. Wehner TC. Genotype environment interaction for cucumber yield in 23 North Carolina environments. Cucurbit Genet Coop Rpt. 1987;9:47–50.
  4. 4. Shrivastava A, Roy S. Cucurbitaceae: A ethnomedicinally important vegetable family. J Med Plants Stud. 2013;1(4):16–20.
  5. 5. Lower RL, Nienhius J, Miller CH. Gene action and heterosis for yield and vegetative characteristics in a cross between a gynoecious pickling cucumber inbred and a Cucumis sativus var. hardwickii R line. J Am Soc Hort Sci. 1982;107:75–8. https://doi.org/10.21273/JASHS.107.1.75
  6. 6. Hayes HK, Jones DR. First generation crosses in cucumbers. Conn Storrs Agric Stat Res. 1916;40:319–22.
  7. 7. Madhu S. Gene action and heterosis studies involving gynoecious lines in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) [Doctoral thesis]. Palampur, India: Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya; 2010.
  8. 8. Mule PN, Khandelwal V, Patil AB, Chaudhary BR. Combining ability studies in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.). Veg Sci. 2011;38(2):203–5.
  9. 9. Reddy MT, Babu KH, Ganesh M, Begum H, Dilipbabu J, Reddy RSK. Gene action and combining ability of yield and its components for late kharif season in okra (Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moench). Chil J Agric Res. 2013;73(1):9–16. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-58392013000100002
  10. 10. Devi ES, Singh NB, Devi AB, Singh NG, Laishram GM. Gene action for fruit yield and its components in tomato (Solanum lycopersicon L.). Indian J Genet. 2005;65(3):221–2.
  11. 11. Das SP, Mandal AR, Maurya PK, Bhattacharjee T, Banerjee S, Mandal AK, et al. Genetic control of economic traits and evidence of economic heterosis in crosses involving monoecious cucumber genotypes. Int J Veg Sci. 2020;26(4):408–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/19315260.2019.1639873
  12. 12. Bisht YS, Singh D, Singh N, Singh SS, Bhatt R, Kumar M, et al. Nutrients profiling for investigating variation and its effect on heterosis and combining ability of cucumber (Cucumis sativus). Indian J Agric Sci. 2023;93:732–7. https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v93i7.136352
  13. 13. Sahoo TR, Singh DK. Exploitation of heterosis in cucumber for earliness, yield and yield contributing traits under protected structure. Int J Chem Stud. 2020;8:918–25. https://doi.org/10.22271/chemi.2020.v8.i1l.8367
  14. 14. Thakur M, Kumar R. Combining ability and gene action studies for different yield contributing traits in cucumber. Indian J Hortic Sci. 2020;77:491–5. https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-0112.2020.00070.5
  15. 15. Kumari R, Kumar S, Leibman D, Abebie B, Shnaider Y, Ding SW, et al. Cucumber RDR1s and cucumber mosaic virus suppressor protein 2b association directs host defence in cucumber plants. Mol Plant Pathol. 2021;21(11):1317–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/mpp.13112
  16. 16. Golabadi M, Golkar P, Eghtedary AR. Combining ability analysis of fruit yield and morphological traits in greenhouse cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.). Can J Plant Sci. 2015;95(2):377–85. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjps2013-387
  17. 17. Laxuman SA, Patil PM, Salimath PR, Dharmatti AS, Byadgi, Nirmalayenagi. Heterosis and combining ability analysis for productivity traits in bitter gourd (Momordica charantia L.). Karnataka J Agric Sci. 2012;25(1):9–13.
  18. 18. Hayes HK, Immer FR, Smith DC. Methods of plant breeding. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company; 1955.
  19. 19. Fonseca A, Patterson FL. Hybrid vigour in a seven parent diallel cross in common winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Crop Sci. 1968;8:85–8. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1968.0011183X000800010025x
  20. 20. Meredith, Bridge. Suggested heterosis estimated over standard check variety (standard heterosis). Agron J. 1972;45:487–90.
  21. 21. Ranganna S. Handbook of analysis and quality control for fruit and vegetable products. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Co Ltd; 1979. p. 279–309.
  22. 22. Tigist M, Workneh TS, Woldetsadik K. Effects of variety on the quality of tomato stored under ambient conditions. J Food Sci Technol. 2013;50:477–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-011-0378-0
  23. 23. Panse VG, Sukatme PV. Statistical methods for agricultural workers. New Delhi: Indian Council of Agricultural Research; 1989. p. 381–2.
  24. 24. Singh RK, Chaudhary BD. Biometrical methods in quantitative genetic analysis. Ludhiana: Kalyani Publishers; 1997.
  25. 25. Kempthorne O. An introduction to genetic statistics. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1957. p. 458–71.
  26. 26. Griffing B. Concepts of general and specific combining ability in relation to diallel crossing systems. Aust J Biol Sci. 1956;90:463–93. https://doi.org/10.1071/BI9560463
  27. 27. Barhate KK, Pawar VY, Shaniware YA, Karvar SH, Gavali RK. Heterosis and combining ability studies of newly developed restorers in pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.). Int J Adv Biochem Res. 2023;7(2):135–8.
  28. 28. Shaniware YA, Pawar VY, Barhate KK, Surywanshi RT, Patil JM, Patil SD, et al. Combining ability studies for grain yield and associated traits in pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.). Agric Assoc Text Chem Crit Rev J. 2024;12(4):427–32. https://doi.org/10.21276/AATCCReview.2024.12.04.427
  29. 29. Munshi AD, Kumar R, Panda B. Heterosis for yield and its components in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.). Veg Sci. 2005;32(2):133–5.
  30. 30. Munshi AD, Verma VK. Studies on heterosis in muskmelon (Cucumis melo L.). Veg Sci. 1997;21(2):103–6.
  31. 31. Chaubey AK, Ram HH. Heterosis for fruit yield and its components in bitter gourd (Momordica charantia L.). Veg Sci. 2004;31(1):513.
  32. 32. Sarkar M. Genetical studies in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) [Doctoral thesis]. New Delhi, India: Indian Agricultural Research Institute; 2003.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.