GENETIC VARIABILITY AND CHARACTER ASSOCIATION IN

SUNFLOWER (Helianthus annus L.) GENOTYPES IN CENTRAL

HIGHLANDS OF ETHIOPIA

MSc. THESIS

MOHAMMED ABU EDEO

JUNE, 2019
JIMMA, ETHIOPIA

1
 GENETIC VARIABILITY AND CHARACTER ASSOCIATION IN
SUNFLOWER (Helianthus annus L.) GENOTYPES IN CENTRAL
HIGHLANDS OF ETHIOPIA

BY

Mohammed Abu

A Thesis Submitted to School of Graduate Studies of Jimma University

College of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Plant breeding

Major Advisor: Sentayehu Alamerew (Professor.)

Co-Advisor: Mistru Tesfaye (Associate Researcher)

JUNE, 2019
JIMMA ETHIOPIA

2
II
DEDICATION
I dedicated this thesis to my younger brother Umar Abu

III
STATEMENT OF THE AUTHOR
By my signature below, I declare and affirm that this thesis is my own work and all sources of
materials used for this thesis had properly acknowledged. This thesis is submitted in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for MSc degree at Jimma University. I declare that this thesis
has not been submitted to any other institution anywhere for the award of any academic
degree, diploma or certificate. A brief quotation from this thesis is not allowed to be made
without special permission provided or unless accurate and complete acknowledgement of the
source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotations from or reproduction of this
thesis in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the School or department when in his
or her judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interest of the scholarship. In all
other instances, permission must be obtained from the author of the thesis.

Name: Mohammed Abu

Place: Jimma University, Ethiopia

Date of Submission: _____________________

Signature: ________________

IV
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to acknowledge both of my supervisors prof. Sentayehu Alamerew and Mr. Mistru
Tesfaye for their helpful guidance, hard work and inspiration throughout my graduate study,
and for their kind supervision, invaluable comments and assistance in various aspects of the
thesis work from the very start of proposal development. Their advice and suggestions greatly
helped me in analyzing and interpreting the experimental data of my thesis research, without
their contributions this work would have been much less comprehensive.

I express my special thanks to Holletta Agricultural Research Center, for the facilitation of
my thesis research, which includes mobilization of resources, administrative support and
provision of experimental plot and materials. I would like to extend my thanks to Highland oil
seed improvement program staff of Holletta Agricultural Research Center. A special thanks
goes to Semira Daniel, Senafikish H/Mikael, Tsige Kebede, Balcha Raggasa, Tadassa Dabale
and Tilahun Dajane for their help and encouragement during Field management and data
collection.

I would like to express my heart felt thanks to my parents who cultivated and brought me up with delight
and strong moral support. I highly appreciate my mother Shurabi Alako for her patience,
encouragement, advice and strong moral and financial support that helped me to invest all my life on
education. I would like to offer my hearty thanks to my brother Beshir Abu who played avital role in
my academic life. My wife, Hawa Gabiso, deserves special thanks for accepting my absence
when I leave to Jimma, understood and supported me throughout this study.

My sincere appreciation also extends to my fellow graduate students in the plant breeding department,
Awal Beshir, Mohammed Hasan, Getahun Bekana, Mohammedsani Zakir and Dasalegn Chalchisa
without whose help this study could not be completed on time.

Finally, I would like to offer my hearty thanks to all of you who played arole directly or indirectly in
my academic life.

V
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
The author was born on July 05, 1992 from his father Mr. Abu Edeo and his Mother Shurabi
Alako at Tiyo woreda, Arsi zone, Oromia region, Ethiopia. He attended his junior school and
high school education at Abosara Alko primary school (1999-2006), Ketar Genet Secondary
School (2007-2008) and Assella Preparatory School (2009-2010). He then joined Debra
Markos University and graduated in Plant Science with B.Sc. degree in July, 2013. Then after
graduation, he was employed at Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research as junior
researcher in, 2014. He was assigned to Holetta Agricultural Research Center as Highland and
Mid-land oil seed researcher. After two years of service, he then joined Jimma University
College of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine in September 2016 to pursue his MS c. Study
in plant breeding.

VI
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

DEDICATION .......................................................................................................................... II
STATEMENT OF THE AUTHOR ...................................................................................... IV
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................... V
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................................................................................ VI
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................... VII
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................. IX
LIST OFAPPENDIXES TABLES ......................................................................................... X
LIST OF APPENDIXES FIGURES ...................................................................................... X
LIST OF ABBRIVATIONS AND ACRONYMS ...............................................................XII
ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................... XIII
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1
2. LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................................................................... 4
2.1. Botanical Description, Biology and Ecology of Sunflower ............................................ 4
2.2. Morphological Characterization and Genetic Variability of Sunflower ......................... 4
2.3. Correlations and Path analysis ........................................................................................ 6
2.4. Genetic divergence .......................................................................................................... 8
2.5. Heritability and Genetic advance .................................................................................... 9
2.6. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) .......................................................................... 11
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS ...................................................................................... 12
3.1. Description of the study area ......................................................................................... 12
3.2. Experimental materials .................................................................................................. 12
3.3. Experimental design and trial management .................................................................. 13
3.4. Data collected ................................................................................................................ 14
3.4.1. Qualitative data collected........................................................................................ 14
3.4.2. Quantitative data collected...................................................................................... 15
3.5. Statistical Data Analysis ................................................................................................ 16
3.5.1 Analysis of variance................................................................................................. 17
3.5.2. Components of genetic variability .......................................................................... 18
3.5.2.1. Phenotypic and genotypic coefficient of variation .............................................. 18
3.5.6. Heritability and Genetic advance ............................................................................ 19
3.5.4. Phenotypic and Genotypic correlation analysis ...................................................... 20
3.5.5. Path Coefficient Analysis. ...................................................................................... 21
3.5.7. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) .................................................................... 22
3.5.2. Genetic Distance and Cluster Analysis ................................................................... 22
3.5.8. Shannon-weaver diversity index ............................................................................. 22
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................................ 23

VII
 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Con't.)

4.1. Analysis of Variance ..................................................................................................... 23

4.2. Range and Mean Performance ...................................................................................... 25
4.3. Variance components .................................................................................................... 26
4.3.1. Genotypic and Phenotypic Coefficients of variation .............................................. 26
4.3.2 .Heritability and genetic advance ................................................................................ 27
4.4. Association of traits ....................................................................................................... 30
4.4.1. Correlation of seed yield with other yield related traits.......................................... 30
4.4.2. Character Association among yield component traits ............................................ 31
4.4.2.1. Phenotypic Correlation among yield related traits .............................................. 31
4.3.2.2. Genotypic correlation among yield related traits ................................................. 33
4.4. 3.Path coefficient analysis ............................................................................................. 35
4.4.3.1. Phenotypic path coefficient analysis.................................................................... 35
4.4.3.2. Genotypic path coefficient analysis ..................................................................... 36
4.5. Principal Component Analysis ...................................................................................... 38
4.6. Cluster analysis .............................................................................................................. 40
4.6.1.Genetic distance between clusters ............................................................................... 43
4.7. Phenotypic frequency and diversity index .................................................................... 44
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION................................................................................... 46
6. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 49
7. APPENDIX ......................................................................................................................... 57

VIII
 LIST OF TABLES

Page
Table.1. Description of study area ........................................................................................... 12
Table 2: Experimental materials .............................................................................................. 13
Table. 3. Anova Skeleton for Individual Location for simple lattice design ........................... 17
Table.4. Anova skeleton for combined analysis for simple lattice design ............................... 18
Table5: Mean square from analysis of variance for different sources of variation and the
corresponding CV for quantitative traits of sunflower genotypes tested at
Table 6: Heritability, genetic advance and coefficients of variations ...................................... 29
Table 7:Phenotypic correlation among fifteen characters in 25 sunflower genotypes sudied
.............................................................................................................................................. …32
Table.8. Genotypic correlation among fifteen characters in 25 Sunflower genotypes Studied
................................................................................................................................................. .34
Table 9: Phenotypic path coefficient analysis: the direct (diagonal) and indirect (off-diagonal)
effects of other traits on seed yield per hectare in Sunflower genotypes ................................. 36
Table.10.Genotypic path coefficient Analysis: the direct (diagonal) and indirect (off-diagonal)
effects of other traits on seed yield per hectare in Sunflower genotypes ................................. 38
Table 11: Eigen vectors Eigen values, proportion and cumulative variance for the first five
PCA of 25 sunflower genotypes based on 15 quantitative traits ........................................... 40
Table 12: Cluster number and genotypes joined ...................................................................... 41
Table 13: Cluster means for fifteen quantitative traits of sunflower genotypes studied at
Holletta and Adadi ................................................................................................................... 42
Table.14. Intra (diagonal) distance and inter cluster (off-diagonal) distance analysis among 25
sunflower genotypes in five clusters ........................................................................................ 44
Table 15: Some Qualitative traits of studied sunflower genotypes.......................................... 45

IX
LIST OF APPENDIXES TABLES

Page
Table.1.Mean square from analysis of variance for different sources of variation and the
corresponding CV for quantitative traits of sunflower genotypes tested at Adadi .................. 57
Table 2: Mean square from analysis of variance for different sources of variation and the
corresponding CV for quantitative traits of sunflower genotypes tested at Holletta ............ ...58
Table.3.Mean Performance of 25 Sunflower Genotypes for Fifteen Quantitative traits studied
at Holletta and Adadi ..................................................... Ошибка! Закладка не определена.
Table.4. Result of Homogenity tested using Hartley (1950) ................................................... 61
Table.5. Mean monthly rain fall and temperature during cropping season at Holletta ........... 62

X
LIST OF APPENDIXES FIGURES
Page

Figure 1: Dendrogram of cluster analysis results ..................................................................... 63

XI
LIST OF ABBRIVATIONS AND ACRONYMS
CSA Central Statistical Agency

D2 Genetic divergence

EIAR Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural research

GA Genetic advance

GAM Genetic advance as percent of mean

GCV Genotypic Coefficient of Variation

HARC Holetta Agricultural Research Center

IBPGR International Board for Plant Genetic Resource

PCV Phenotypic Coefficient of Variation

SAS Statistical Analysis Software

XII
 Genetic Variability and Character Association in Sunflower (Helianthus
annus L.) Genotypes in Central Highland of Ethiopia

ABSTRACT
The productivity of sunflower in Ethiopia is low and below the world average. This low
productivity is attributed to certain yield constraints such as lack of improved varieties and
biotic and a biotic constraints. Twenty five sunflower (Helianthus annus L.) genotypes were
evaluated for agro morphological traits using simple lattice design at two locations, Holletta
and Adadi during 2017/2018 cropping season. The overall objective was to study the extent of
genetic variation and association among seed yield and yield related traits. Data were
recorded for fifteen quantitative and eleven qualitative traits and subjected to analysis by
different statistical software’s following the procedures of different biometricians. Variation
was recorded for all qualitative traits except pollen color, leaf shape and color of ray floret.
The pooled analysis of variances showed highly significant to significant differences for all
quantitative traits except petiole length, stem diameter and ray floret number. High
phenotypic coefficients of variation were recorded for oil yield and seed yield per hectare.
Genotypic coefficients of variation were low for all traits except oil yield and number of seed
per plant which showed medium genotypic coefficients of variation. Heritability in broad
sense ranged from low for yield per plant to high for oil content. High heritability coupled
with high genetic advance was observed for number of seed per plant. Seed yield had positive
and significant genotypic and phenotypic correlation with number of seed per plant, yield per
plant, head diameter and seed filling percentage. Positive and significant phenotypic
associations were also observed for petiole length, plant height and hundred seed weight.
Positive phenotypic direct effects on seed yield per hectare were observed for oil yield,
hundred seed weight, seed filling percentage and seed yield per pant. Oil yield, seed filling
percentage and seed yield per plant gave the highest positive genotypic direct effect on seed
yield per hectare. The first five principal components extracted showed 84.72% of total
variation. The studied genotypes were grouped in to five clusters which make them to be
moderately divergent. Considering of Oil yield, seed filling percentage and seed yield per
plant as selection criteria, for widening the genetic base of the sunflower germplasm in
Ethiopia is a pre-requisite for a successful breeding program. To confirm the results obtained
it is recommended that is better if those materials are studied using molecular markers. Since
the data is obtained from one season over season and replication of the experiment across
locations is recommended.
Keywords: Character Association; Genetic divergence; Genetic variability; Principal
Component; Sunflower; Ethiopia

XIII
1. INTRODUCTION
Sunflower (Helianthus annuus L., 2n=34) is an important oil seed crop that belongs to family
Asteracae (Compositae) originated in temperate zone of North America Bukhsh et al. (2011).
It is believed to have been domesticated from wild sunflowers around 1000 B.C. in North
America and disseminated to South or Central America, Asia, Europe and Africa Putman et
al. (1990). Sunflower is across pollinated crop and honey bee is the principal pollinator of this
crop (Low and Pistillo, 1986). Although, the crop is regarded as a temperate zone crop, it is
currently cultivated approximately in 40 countries of the world, including some countries in
the humid tropical Africa because it is widely adapted and can perform well under varying
climatic and soil conditions kaleem et al. (2011). The firs breeding effort to improve
sunflower was started in North America and then Russia were selection of the crop results in
improvement for earlier maturity and high oil percentage.

In Ethiopia, sunflower research program started in the late1960 by introduction of

germplasms with the objective of developing varieties with high oil content and stable
performance in different agro ecologies of the country. Fourteen sunflower varieties were
released since then. Sunflower shows a wider range of adaptation as compared to other
oilseed crops (Teklewold, 2000). It is adapted to altitude ranging from below 800 to above
2400 m.a.s.l. and highly suited to 1300-2600 m.a.s.l and can be grown in soil types with PH
of 5.5-8 (Haile, 1994). Sunflower widely produced for edible oil and its oil is highly used in
the human diet because of its high level of unsaturated fatty acids, lack of linolenic acid and
bland flavor Putman et al. (1990). Moreover, sunflower has many other uses such as forage
(used as silage crop for animals), food for ruminant animals plus swine and poultry, industrial
applications and non-oilseed feed (use for bird feed or in human diets as a snack) Putman et
al. (1990). Its oil may also be used as a raw material to extract biodiesel, which can be used as
fuel in diesel engines Antolin et al. (2002).

Sunflower is grown in all continents and covers about 25.24 million hectares of the cultivated
land of the world with production and productivity of 45.9 million metric tons and 1.8 metric
tons per hectare ,respectively (USDA, 2017). The productivity of sunflower in Ethiopia is
1.18 metric tons per hectare in average which is lower than the world average. This low
productivity problem is attached to certain yield constraints such as; lack of improved

1
varieties released in the country, biotic and a biotic stresses and sub optimal agronomic
practices Teklewold (200). To overcome this low yield constraint by developing improved
varieties, study of genetic variability and evaluation of the genotypes is important to enhance
selection for desirable traits. Considering the magnitude of variability present in a crop
species is most important as it allows effective selection. The total observable variation
includes both genetic and environmental components. Genotypic variation is the main
concern of plant breeders. Thus, in selection for yield more consideration has to be given to
those attributes with low environmental variability. Yield being a complex character is
collectively influenced by various component traits which are polygenic all inherited.
Therefore, improvement for yield cannot be achieved through simple phenotypic selection
because of its polygenic nature and low heritability. High heritability is needed to execute
effective selection scheme for the trait of interest. Heritability along with genetic advance is
more reliable than heritability alone Johnson et al. (1955). Understanding of association of
traits and variability among genotypes also helps breeders in formulating effective selection
procedure.

Association of yield and component traits helps to identify traits on wich selection can be
based for the improvement of yield. Correlation coefficient analysis helps to identify inter
relationship among traits. Path coefficient analysis helps to identify the direct and indirect
effects of the independent variable on the dependent one. Clustering of genotypes is also
important to estimate the degree of genetic divergence also used determine the relative
contribution of each character to the total divergence. One of the techniques that consider
genetic value for selection is the genetic distance between genotypes. D2 is used to quantify
the extent of diversity and to determine relative contribution of each component to the total
divergence.

Though sunflower is an important crop to smallholder farmers, the production of this crop is
distributed thought the country with very limited area coverage (CSA, 2017) as compared to
other oil crops. This may be attributed to lack of availability of improved sunflower varieties
and underestimation of the advantage of the crop, particularly in food insecure areas. In order
to increase sunflower production and productivity in Ethiopia research efforts aimed at
supplying farmers with improved varieties is one contribution. Currently under Ethiopian

2
sunflower improvement project, large sunflower germplasms are available some of these
germplasms are introduced.

As far as the variability and association among traits in these sunflowers genotypes is
concerned little has been done. Hence the present study was undertaken with the following
objectives.

General objective

To estimate the extent of genetic variability and association of traits among seed yield and
yield related traits in sunflower genotypes

Specific objectives of this study

 To estimate the extent of phenotypic and genotypic variation, heritability, and genetic
advance as percent of mean.
 To assess the extent of association of seed yield with other traits at phenotypic and
genotypic levels.
 To group the studied genotypes in to different classes and estimate the extent of
genetic distance between clusters by using cluster analysis.

3
2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Botanical Description, Biology and Ecology of Sunflower

Helianthus is a genus in the tribe Helianthae of the Compositae family. The genus consists of
annual and perennial species. Helianthus annuus L. is a diploid plant with 2n=34
chromosomes Fick (1989). The cultivated species H. annuus known also as sunflower has
close wild species relatives. The cultivated H. annuus as described by (Heiser, 1978 and
Seiler, 1997) for the most part are tall, but varieties have been developed that range from 50 to
500 cm. The sunflower is an annual crop that is propagated by seed only and can hybridize
spontaneously with several wild/weedy relatives Burke et al. (2002). Until the 1960's the
cultivars grown were open-pollinated and cross-pollinated mostly by insects. They, along with
the wild species, were highly self-incompatible.

Current commercial sunflower varieties are self-compatible, however environmental

conditions can influence the level of self-fertility expressed Snow et al. (1998). Pollen transfer
is via insect pollinators, principally bees. The pollen is spiney and adapted to be transported
by insects. Little is pollinated by wind, as the pollen is rather heavy Fick (1978). It may be
viable for several days. Although the anthers containing the pollen and the stigma are on the
same floret, the two lobes of the stigma are initially not exposed to their own pollen.
However, they are susceptible to pollination from other florets of the same head by pollinating
agents like, insects, wind and gravity.

2.2. Morphological Characterization and Genetic Variability of Sunflower

The success of any breeding program depends on the presence of significant genetic
variability and genetic divergence to permit effective selection. Study of genetic variability
would generally be considered for varietal identification. Some of the research findings on
using morphological characters are reviewed below:

Vannozzi et al. (1990) reported genetic variability in inter specific hybrids of sunflower using
morphological characters viz., plant height, seed weight, leaf color, size, leaf margin, stem
hairness and head diameter. Jag dish et al. (1994) stated variability of characters in sunflower
parental lines and hybrids based on branching nature, plant height, seed color, seed shape and

4
found that characters, seed color, shape and number of leaves on main stem varied with
genotypes studied. Suma and Virupakshappa (1994) evaluated 196 accessions of sunflower
germplasm and reported that 157 had medium petiole length, 115 had strong vigor, 58 had
high branching, 73 had head inclination and 116 had 10 per cent bending. Anita (1995)
classified sunflower 64 genotypes using seed characters viz., seed shape, color, 100-seed
weight, seed size and plant characters like leaf shape, color, margin, stem hairiness,
branching, number of branches per plant, petiole length, stem hairness, plant height and head
diameter. Dash et al. (1996) studied genetic variability evaluated eighteen early maturing
hybrids to assess the extent of variation in Quantitative traits for all the 9 characters studied
hybrids showed significant differences. Co-efficient of variability recorded was the highest
for seed yield. Seed yield per plant and seed yield per hectare both recorded higher variances.
Jayant et al. (2001) studied 12 sunflower genotypes using characters viz., low oil content, high
hundred seed weight, and high seed yield and found that three lines were higher in 100-seed
weight and two lines with low hull content.

Rajendra Prasad et al. (2003) reported variability for among ten hybrids of sunflower along
with parental lines using morphological characters viz., leaf size, leaf color, leaf angle
between lower part of petiole and stem, hairiness on leaf, petiole pigmentation, stem
pigmentation, ray flower color, shape, disk flower color, bract shape, plant height, seed size,
seed shape, seed length and seed base color. Kluza et al. (2004) characterized and evaluated
two hybrids and one population of sunflower using morphological characters viz., length of
Internodes, number of leaves, length and width of leaves, petiole length, head diameter and
degree of head inclination.

Rajeswari (2004) evaluated 16 genotypes of sunflower using 10 morphological characters viz.,

leaf size, leaf color, leaf angle between lower part of petiole and stem, petiole pigmentation,
ray flower color, disc flower color, branching, type of branching, seed shape, seed base color
and eight yield component characters viz., plant height, days to 50 per cent flowering, days to
maturity, head diameter, number of filled seeds per head, 100 seed weight (g), seed yield per
plant (g) and oil content. Ekin et al. (2005) evaluated different sunflower hybrids for oil yield
and yield components. Success in plant breeding primarily depends on the nature and
magnitude of variation present in the germplasm. Variability is the most significant feature of

5
any population. Genetic variability in population is the prerequisite for response to selection
in any crop improvement program. Hence the estimates of genetic variability are of immense
value in identifying the superior genotypes. The study and utilization of existing variability
becomes highly essential to a plant breeder for employing the proper breeding method.

Shinde et al. (1983) studied 123 cultivars of sunflower and noticed high variability for seed
yield per plant, head diameter and 1000-seed weight and moderate variability for number of
leaves and days to 50 per cent flowering and . Sheriff et al. (1985) observed high phenotypic
variance than genotypic variance and moderate GCV estimates for seed yield, plant height
and number of seeds per head. Gangappa (1991) indicated high PCV and GCV for seed yield
per plant, and 100-seed weight. Muhammad et al. (1992) observed high genotypic and
phenotypic variances for plant height and oil content. Ojha and Roy (2001) studied ten
characters in sunflower for estimation of genetic components of variance and heritability and
Reported high genetic variance for yield per plant and plant height and low genetic variance
for oil content. Ravi (2001) evaluated 66 genotypes and reported high variability for 100 seed
weight, number of filled seeds as well as unfilled seeds per plant.

Sujatha et al. (2002) studied 51 inbreeds and three control genotypes of sunflower and
reported significant variation for 15 quantitative characters. Seneviratne et al. (2003) studied
200 sunflower lines and reported a high PCV and GCV for plant height, head diameter,
number of days to 50 per cent flowering, number of days to maturity, 100-seed weight, seed
yield and oil yield.

2.3. Correlations and Path analysis

Correlation coefficient is a measure which determines the relationship between two variables
and aids in selection of superior lines for the improvement of particular character. The
association between two characters that can be directly observed is the phenotypic
correlations. Phenotypic correlations measure the extent to which the two observed characters
are linearly related. Genetic correlation is the associations of breeding values (i.e. additive
genetic variance) of the two characters. Genetic correlation measures the extent to which
degree the same genes or closely linked genes cause co-variation (simultaneous variations) in
two different characters. The correlation of environmental deviations together with non-

6
additive genetic deviations (i.e. dominance and epistatic genetic deviations) is referred to as
environmental correlations. Correlation at the genetic level may arise from different factors.
Correlation arising from pleiotropy expresses the extent to which two characters are
influenced by the same gene. Depending on the sign of genetic correlations between two
characters can either facilitate or impede selection progress. In order to understand the inter-
character associations among different yield contributing characters, it is necessary to
interpret correlation in the crop plants. The yield is a complex character and depends upon a
number of yield contributing traits. Selection on seed yield per se is often less effective,
making it imperative to go for indirect selection through component traits Singh (1983).
Correlation coefficient generally shows the degree of relationships among characters. It is not
sufficient to describe this relationship when the causal relationships of the characters among
them are unknown. Path analysis is used when we want to know causal effects.

Path coefficient analysis gives the information on direct and indirect effects of characters on
seed yield and it is useful to find out the direct and indirect causes of association. It also helps
in examining the relative contribution of direct and indirect effects of individual variables.
Hence, path coefficient analysis is of much importance in the breeding program. Giriraj et al.
(1979) evaluated 362 lines and observed that plant height, head diameter and 100 seed weight
had strong positive correlation with seed yield in Sunflower. Lakshmanaiah (1980) observed a
positive correlation between seed yield and yield related characters like head diameter, 100
seed weight, seed number per plant, plant height and oil content. Sheriff et al. (1987) noticed
that seed yield was positively associated with plant height, number of leaves, head diameter
and number of seeds per head.

Singh et al. (1990) found that seed yield was positively correlated with days to maturity, plant
height, head diameter, seed filling and 1000-seed weight, path coefficient analysis indicated
that head diameter and 1000-seed weight had the greatest direct effect on seed yield followed
by days to maturity and plant height. Singh et al. (1998) evaluated 24 hybrids of sunflower
and reported that seed yield had significant positive correlation with stem diameter, head
diameter, number of leaves per plant, number of seeds per head and 100 seed weight and also
stated positive direct effect of 100 seed weight and number of filled seeds on seed yield per

7
plant. Ashok et al. (2000) studied with 40 sunflower hybrids showed that yield per plant was
positively and significantly correlated with days to maturity, plant height, diameter of stem
and head diameter. Chikkadevaiah et al. (2002) studied 51 sunflower inbreeds along with
three control genotypes and reported positive correlation for plant height, oil content, head
during and seed yield and also stated that seed yield was positively associated with hundred
seed weight, days to 50 per cent flowering and oil yield. Gill et al. (2003) studied path
coefficient analysis on 45 sunflower genotypes and revealed that selection for any trait would
influence oil yield per plant through seed yield per plant. Wani (2004) evaluated Modern
variety of sunflower indicated that the yield was positively correlated with oil content, 1000
seed weight, head diameter and number of seeds per head.

Vidhyavathi et al. (2005) studied correlation and path analysis in 29 sunflower genotypes and
found that head diameter and plant height had significant positive correlation with seed
yield/plant. Ravi et al. (2006) evaluated 63 inbred lines to study the character associations and
path analysis and reported that number of seeds per plant and head diameter had strong
positive association with seed yield and reported that number of seeds per plant had higher
direct effect on seed yield. Rao et al. (2003) studied 82 sunflower genotypes using correlation
and showed the presence of significant positive association of seed yield with the number of
filled seeds per head, head diameter, stem diameter, number of leaves per plant and plant
height with seed yield.

2.4. Genetic divergence

For estimation of genetic divergence in germplasm collection of various crops, multivariate

analysis using D2 statistics has been found to be a potential biometrical tool (Rao, 1952; Singh
and Gupta, 1968). A study conducted by Anand and Chandra (1980) on genetic diversity,
using 30 cultivars of sunflower from 6 different geographic regions of the world enabled them
to group the genotypes into 9 clusters. Sankarapandian et al. (1996) studied genetic
divergence in 54 genotypes of sunflower by D2 analysis for a set of characters and grouped the
genotypes into seven clusters. Sridhar (1999) conducted a study on 41 sunflower genotypes
for genetic divergence using D2 analysis and grouped them into 9 clusters. Teklewold et al.
(2000) evaluated 144 sunflower genotypes consisting of 66 germplasm accessions, 75 inbred

8
lines and three checks using Mahalanobis D2 statistics and indicated the presence of
substantial genetic diversity.

Ravi (2001) evaluated 66 sunflower genotypes for their genetic divergence using D2 analysis
and grouped them into nine clusters and also reported seed yield and plant height contributed
maximum towards genetic divergence. Subramanyam et al. (2003) studied genetic divergence
with respect to eleven characters in 85 sunflower genotypes consisting of 80 inbreeds and five
clusters as checks using Mahalanobis D2 statistics and indicated the presence of substantial
genetic diversity and grouped the genotypes into 15 clusters. Among the investigated
characters, the number of seeds per head and seed yield per plant exhibited high contribution
towards genetic divergence. Roy and Ali (2003) reported that D2 analysis of 18 sunflower
hybrids resulted in eight clusters. Komaraiah et al. (2004) evaluated 101 sunflower genotypes
for the genetic divergence using D2 analysis and grouped them into 10 clusters and reported
that number of seeds per head contributed highest towards genetic divergence followed by
plant height, days to maturity, oil content, seed yield, days to 50 per cent flowering, number
of leaves and head diameter.

Rao et al. (2005) evaluated 94 sunflower genotypes and grouped into 10 clusters based on D2
values and stated that mean values of clusters for seed yield and yield components indicated
the existence of considerable distance for all characters in various genotypes. Mahalakshmi et
al. (2006) evaluated 29 sunflower genotypes and assessed genetic divergence by D2 analysis
and grouped the genotypes into seven clusters based on inter cluster distances and cluster
mean for various characters.

2.5. Heritability and Genetic advance

Heritability represents the ratio between genetic and all factors (including non-genetic ones)
that influence the variability (Bernardo, 2002). Heritability percentage estimate from total
genetic variance without taking into consideration the components of genetic variance are
referred to as heritability in broad sense, because it estimates heritability on the basis of all
genetic effects. Heritability expressed as percentage of additive component of variance is
referred as narrow sense heritability. It indicates the effectiveness with which selection of
phenotypes can be based on phenotypic performance. If heritability were 100% then

9
phenotypic performance would be perfect indication of genotypic value. The response of
selection for qualitative characteristics is directly proportional to the function of its
heritability and its genetic variance Johnson et al. (1955).

Heritability estimates and Genetic advance are absolutely necessary to start an efficient
breeding program Atta et al. (2008). Heritability value alone may not provide clear
predictability of the breeding value. Heritability in conjugation with genetic advance over
means (GAM) is more effective and reliable in predicting the resultant effect of selection
Ramanjinappa et al. (2011). Genetic advance is also of considerable importance because it
indicates the magnitude of the expected genetic gain from one cycle of selection Hamdi et al.
(2003).

Heritable variation cannot be determined with the high genetic coefficient of variation alone
and for greater heritability, the heritability estimates as well as the genetic advance are
essential. The extent to which a phenotype is determined by its genetic makeup (genotype) is
called heritability in the broad sense. At gene level, broad sense heritability is the proportion
of the total variance that is attributable to the average effects of genes and this is what
determines the degree of resemblance between relatives. Heritability of a trait does not
depend only on genetic factor, it also depends on the environmental effects to which an
individual is subjected Falconer (1970). Less genetic gain is expected through selection in
characters depicting high heritability estimates with low genetic advance while considerable
genetic gain is expected through selection for traits possessing high GCV, moderate
heritability and high genetic advance Patil et al. (1996).

Taking into consideration the importance of heritability, different workers estimated

heritability in sunflower. Hassan et al. (2012) conducted heritability studies on 10 genotypes
of sunflower and reported high heritability with moderate genetic advance for plant height, oil
content, protein content and achene weight per head. Iqbal et al. (2013) estimated the
heritability and genetic advance in 10 genotypes of sunflower and reported moderate
heritability with high genetic advance as per cent of mean for total leaf area and achene
weight. Ameena et al. (2014) reported high heritability and high genetic advance as percent of
mean for plant height, head diameter and seed yield per plant in two back cross populations
of sunflower.

10
2.6. Principal Component Analysis (PCA)

Principal component analysis is used to identify the most significant variables in the data set.
PCA is one of the statistical tools to assess and evaluate genetic diversity. Plant breeders can
apply this multivariate tool to investigate clear pattern of diversity existing in the different
genotypes. Sahkar et al. (2004) stated the potential use of principal component analysis in
cultivar development program for selection of superior genotypes in sunflower. The results of
PC is of greater benefit to identify the parents for improving various traits or characters or
component and it can also be exploited in planning and execution of future breeding program
Mustafa et al. (2015) and Venujayakanth et al. (2017). It also offers an opportunity for the
exploitation of appropriate germplasm in crop development for specific plant characters
(Pecetti and Damania 1996). Nazir et al. (2013) stated that principal component analysis
(PCA) is a reliable tool for successfully selection of parents in breeding program of any
crop.

Taking into account the importance of principal component analysis, different researchers
used it in sunflower. Arshad et al. (2010) carried out multivariate analysis of 37 sunflower
hybrids for eight agronomic characters and observed that days to flower initiation, days to
flower completion, days to maturity, plant height and oil content contributed for PC1 while
100 seed weight alone contributed to PC2 and results revealed that PC1, PC2 and PC3
accounted for 47.29%, 14.23% and 13.01% respectively to the total divergence. Maruthi
Sankar et al. (1999) have assessed the variability of eight plant traits for growth of sunflower and
reduced the dimensionality to two principal components, which extracted about 80% of variance in the
original data. Kholghi et al. (2011) studied 36 confectionary sunflower populations using
principal component analysis and noted a relative contribution of 78% of total variation by the
first four components comprising of Eigen values greater than one. PC1 displayed 40.2% of
total variation and was found to be negatively associated with head diameter, seed yield,
harvest index, stem diameter and number of leaves indicating genotypes with high values of
PC1 were noted for lower seed yield and vice versa. Zeinalzadeh-Tabrizi and Ghaffari (2005)
have also used this method for the estimation of genetic diversity of sunflower genotypes.

11
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1. Description of the Study area
The study was conducted at Holeta Agriculture Research center (HARC) and Adadi testing
site during 2017/18. Description of the study area is presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Description of the study area

Descriptor Locations
Holletta Adadi
Latitude 9º 00’ N 08°31’ N
Longitude 38º30’ E 38°13’ E
Altitude (m a. s. l.) 2400 2383
Mean annual rain fall (mm) 1144 mm 1105
Mean annual temperature (°C) Min=6°C 16.9
Max.22°C
Soil type Nitosols Light brown
Soil drainage Well drained Well drained
Soil pH 6.0 7.62
Organic C (%) 1.18 1.16
N (%) 0.16 0.15

Source: HARC, 2017

3.2. Experimental materials used for study

The experimental materials were obtained from the National oilseed Coordinating Center,
Holletta Agricultural Research Center. Twenty four sunflower genotypes introduced and
adapted to central highland of Ethiopia and one standard check were included in the study
(Table 2). The genotypes were introduced from, France, Hindi and Brazil and were
maintained at Holletta Agricultural Research Center. The check variety included in the study
is released cultivar recommended for high and mid altitude zones of Ethiopia.

12
Table 2: Experimental materials used for the study

Entry no. Genotype Origin Source Status

1 Adadi-3-SPS-2/4 India HARC PVT
2 Adadi-3-SPS-5/4 India HARC PVT
3 Adadi-3-SPS-9/4 India HARC PVT
4 NK-FERTI-SPS-1/4 France HARC PVT
5 NK-FERTI-SPS-4/4 France HARC PVT
6 NK-KONDI-SPS-2/4 France HARC PVT
7 NK-KONDI-SPS-7/4 France HARC PVT
8 NK-NEOMA-SPS-2/4 France HARC PVT
9 Brazil Long seed PL2-SPS-3/4 Brazil HARC PVT
10 Brazil Long seed PL4-SPS-4/4 Brazil HARC PVT
11 NK-FERTI-SPS-8/1 France HARC PVT
12 Brazil Long Seed PL6-SPS-7/4 Brazil HARC PVT
13 Brazil Long Seed PL9-SPS-4/4 Brazil HARC PVT
14 H-45-SPS-5/4 India HARC PVT
15 NK-FERTI-SPS-7/4 France HARC PVT
16 NK-KONDI-SPS-7/4 France HARC PVT
17 NK-NEOMA-SPS-7/4 France HARC PVT
18 VSFH-180-SPS-5/4 India HARC PVT
19 VSFH-1044-SPS-1/4 India HARC PVT
20 VSFH-1044-SPS-2/4 India HARC PVT
21 VSFH-1044-SPS-3/4 India HARC PVT
22 VSFH-1044-SPS-9/4 India HARC PVT
23 VSFH-1044-SPS-10/4 India HARC PVT
24 VSFH-2006-SPS-2/4 India HARC PVT
25 Oissa Released HARC Breeder seed

3.3. Experimental design and trial management

The experiment was replicated twice using simple lattice Design (5x5). Each plot had a length
of 4m and4 rows with row to row spacing of 75cm and plant-to-plant 25cm respectively. The
seed sown at two locations (Holetta and Adadi) and all seeds emerged. Two seeds were
dibbled in each hill for better emergency and thinning was carried after emergency to retain
one plant per hill. Sowing date was done on June, 29/2017. Planting was performed manually
and hand weeding was carried out twice. All other agronomic practices recommended for the
area were followed during the crop growth period.

13
3.4. Data collected

The following data were collected either on plant bases or plot bases for quantitative and
qualitative traits by using Descriptors of international Board for Plant Genetic Resources
(IBPGR, 1985) for Sunflower.

3.4.1. Qualitative data collected

1. Leaf shape
It was observed visually at flowering stage and grouped as oblong, lanceolate, triangular,
cordate and rounded.
2. Ray floret shape
Was observed at flowering stage as elongated, ovate and rounded.

3. Ray floret color

Was visually recorded at flowering stage as ivory, pale yellow, yellow, orange, purple, red
and multi-color.
4. Pollen color
Was visually observed at flowering stage as white, pale yellow, yellow and orange.
5. Head shape
Was visually observed at maturity stage as concave, flat, convex and irregular.
6. Leaf serration
Leaf serration was recorded at flowering stage as fine, medium and coarse.
7. Stem hairiness
Was observed visually at flowering stage as absent, medium and strong.
8. Orientation of leaf blade
Was visually observed at flowering stage as erect and drooping
9. Leaf habit of petiole
Petiole leaves were observed on plot basis and grouped as erect, semi-erect, erect to semi-
erect, semi-erect to horizontal and horizontal.
10. Plant branching
Was visually observed at maturity stage as absent, basal branching, top branching, fully
branched with central head and fully branched without central head.

14
11. Bract shape
Was visually recorded on plot basis as elongated and rounded.
3.4.2. Quantitative data collected
1. Number of Leaves per plant
Leaves of 5 randomly selected plants were counted after attaining of maximum number of
leaves.
2 .Height of plant (cm)
At full development of crop 5 plants were sampled randomly and heights of plants were
recorded from ground level to the point of attachment of disk with the stem.
3. Head diameter (cm)
Lengths of disks of 5 randomly taken plants were measured from one edge of the disc to the other
and their averages were taken.
4. Petiole length (cm)
The lengths of petioles were recorded for five randomly taken plants per plot and average was
computed.
5. Number of leaves on main stem
Numbers of leaves for five plants per plot were counted at flowering stage and averages were
computed.
6. Ray floret number
Ray florets of 5 randomly taken plants were counted at flowering stage and averages were
computed.
7. Days to 50% flowering
Numbers of days from the date of sowing to the day on which 50 per cent of plants flowers
were recorded.
8. Days to maturity
Number of days from the date of sowing to the day on which back of capitulum in 50 per cent
of plants in a line turned to lemon yellow color was recorded.
9. Stem diameter (cm)
Stem diameter was measured for 5 plants randomly taken from a plot in centimeters at one
third height of the plant from ground level with the help of vernier calipers.

15
10. Seed filling Percentage (%)
Total number of seeds per head was calculated from number of filled seeds and unfilled seeds
of the head and the seed filling percentage was computed using the following formula.

number of filledd seeds

Seed filling percent = × 100
total number of filled and unfilled seeds
11. Hundred Seed weight (g)
One hundred filled seeds were sampled randomly, weighed and the weight was recorded in
grams.
12. Seed yield per plant (g)
The total weight of seeds per plant was recorded in grams for five plants and averages were
computed.
13. Oil content (%)
The seed oil content was determined through non-destructive method by utilizing nuclear
magnetic resonance (NMR) technique in the laboratory of Oil Seeds Research at HARC. Oil
percentage (%) was determined by using nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometry (NMRS).
Sample of 10g of seeds were dried in an oven for 3hr at 78℃ and cooled for 3hours.Then oil
contents of seeds were measured using nuclear magnetic resonance machine.
14. Seed yield per hectare (kg).
Seed Yield recorded per plot was converted to hectare for all plots.
15. Oil yield (kg/ha)
Oil yield in kg/ha was calculated by using the formula of Habib and Mehdi (2002).

kg
kg seed yield x oil content %
ha
Oil yield =
ha 100

3.5. Statistical Data Analysis

Data were subjected to statistical analysis according to Gomez and Gomez using (1984),
bivariate and multivariate analyses were done using SAS version 9.3 (SAS Institute, 2012)
computer soft wares and qualitative data analyses were done by using Shannon-weaver
diversity index (1968).

16
3.5.1. Analysis of variance

The quantitative data collected from the two locations for all the parameters were subjected to
analysis using SAS statistical computer package for analysis of variance. Means of
quantitative traits were compared according to least significant difference (LSD). Range,
coefficients of phenotypic and genotypic variances and heritability were calculated from mean
square value and grand mean for each trait. Differences between genotypes for various
characters were tested for significance by using analysis of variance technique (Panse and
Sukhatme, 1957). The data were statistically analyzed using a combination of statistical
software. A generalized linear model (GLM) which included genotype, location, genotype ×
location interaction, and replication and block effects were performed using SAS according to
the following statistical model:

The ANOVA for individual location followed the following model:

Pijk = + gi+ bk (j) + rj + eij

th th th
Where, Pijk= phenotypic value of i genotype under j replication and k incomplete block
within replication j; =grand mean; gi= the effect of ith genotype; Bk (j) =the effect of
incomplete
block k within replication j; Rj=the effect of replication j; and Eijk= the residual or effect of
random error.

Table 3: ANOVA Skeleton for Individual Location for simple lattice design

Source of variation Degree of freedom Sum of Squares(SS) Mean Squares(MS)

Replications(r) r-1 SSR
Genotypes(un adjusted) g-1 SSG
Block in rep(adjusted) r(b-1) SSB Eb
Intra block error (b-1)(rb-b-1) SSE Ee
Total(T) Rb-1 SST

17
For combined analysis of variance over locations, the total variations among the Genotypes
measured using the following model:

Pijkz = + gi+ Bk (j) (z) + Rj (z) + Lz + (GL) iz + Eijkz

Where, Pijkz= phenotypic value of ith genotype under jth replication at zth location and kth
incomplete block within replication j and location z; =grand mean; gi = the effect of ith
genotype; Bk(j)(z)= the effect of incomplete block k within replication j and location z; Rj
(z)=the effect of replication j within location z; Lz= the effect of location z; (GL)iz=the
interaction effects between genotype and location; and Eijkz= the residual or effect of random
error.

Table 4: ANOVA skeleton for combined analysis for simple lattice design

Sources of variation Degree of freedom Mean squares Expected mean square

Location L-1 MSL 2e+ rσ2gi+ gσ2L

Replication r-1 MSR 2 e + g σ2r

Blocks in replication r(b-1) MSB 2e + r σ2gi + r σ2 g

(b)
Genotypes (g) g-1 MSG σ e 2 + rσ2gi + rLσ2g

GxL interaction (i) (g-1)(L-1) MSGL 2 e + r2gi

Error (e) Lg(l-1)-(rb-1) MSE 2 e

3.5.2. Components of genetic variability

3.5.2.1. Phenotypic and genotypic coefficient of variation

The phenotypic and genotypic variances were calculated as per the formula suggested by
Burton and Devane (1953).

MSS due to treatment Mt − MSS due to error Me

Genotypic Varience(𝜎 2 𝑔) =
Number of replications(r)

18
 𝑝ℎ𝑒𝑛𝑜𝑡𝑦𝑝𝑖𝑐𝑣𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝜎 2 𝑝 = 𝜎 2 𝑔 + 𝜎 2 𝑒

σ2 e = error variance

The phenotypic and genotypic variance for the pooled data analysis across the two locations
was computed using the formula suggested by Hallauer and Miranda (1988) as follows.

 2 ph   2
g   2 ge / e   2 e/re  msg/re

Genotype variance (σ2g) = [(σ2e+ Rσ2gl+ RLσ2g) - (σ 2e + Rσ2gl)]/RL = (MSG-MSGXL)/ RL

Genotype x location interaction variance (σ2gl) = [(σ2e+ Rσ2gl) – (σe2)]/R = (MS5-MSE)/R
Environmental variance (σ 2e) =MSE
The genotypic coefficients of variation (GCV) and phenotypic coefficients of variation (PCV)
were also computed following the formula suggested by Burton and Devane (1953).

σ2 P
Phenotypic cofficient of variation PCV = × 100
×

σ2 g
Genotypic coefficient of variatio GCV = × 100
X

3.5.6. Heritability and Genetic advance

Heritability in the broad sense (H2) was estimated according to Falconer and MacKay (1996).
Classified as low (below 30%), medium (30-60%) and high (above 60%) as suggested by
Johnson et al. (1955).

σ2 g
H2 = σ2 p × 100

Where, H² =heritability in broad sense

σ2g = Genotypic variance and
σ2p= Phenotypic variance

19
GA and GAM% were calculated as per the procedure recommended by Singh and Chaudhury
(1985).

𝐺𝐴 = 𝐾 ∗ 𝐻 2 √𝜎 2 𝑝ℎ

Where, H2 = Heritability in broad sense, σph= Phenotypic standard deviation, GA= Expected
genetic advance k = the standardized selection differential at 5% selection intensity (2.06).

The genetic advance as percentage population mean (GAM) was estimated following the
methods described by Johnson et al. (1955) and classified as low (<10%), moderate (10-20%)
and high (>20%).

𝐺𝐴
𝐺𝐴𝑀 = × 100
𝑋

Where, GA=Genetic advance under selection and x̄ =Grand Mean of the trait.

3.5.4. Phenotypic and Genotypic correlation analysis

Correlation coefficient between pairs of quantitative traits were estimated as described by

singh and chaudary (1977).To estimate the phenotypic and genotypic correlation coefficient,
first covariance estimates between all pairs of the traits were be calculated using the formula:

𝑴𝑺𝑷𝒈−𝑴𝑺𝑷𝒆
Genotypic covariance (𝝈𝒈𝒙𝒚 )=
𝒓
𝝈𝒆𝒙𝒚
Phenotypic covariance(𝝈𝒑𝒙𝒚 )=𝝈𝒈𝒙𝒚 +
𝒓
Where, MSPe =mean sum of cross product for error, MSPg= mean sum of cross products for
genotypes and r=number of replications.
Phenotypic and genotypic correlation coefficients were calculated for each pair of character
using the formulae suggested by Singh and Chaudary (1987).

Cov, xy genotypic
Genotypic correlation coefficient rg =
var X ∗ var Y genotypic

20
 Cov x, y phenotypic
Phenotypic correlation cofficient =
var X ∗ var Y phenotypic
The values of genotypic correlation exceeding unity was considered as unit only (of some
sign) to test the significance of correlation coefficients, the estimated values were compared
with the table values of correlation coefficients (Fisher and Yates, 1967) at 5% level of
significance at (n-2) degrees of freedom, where ‘n’ is the number of genotypes to be used in
the experiment

3.5.5. Path Coefficient Analysis.

The use of simple correlation analysis could not fully explain the association among yield and
yield related traits. Understanding of path coefficient analysis helps the breeders to explain
the direct and indirect effects of the independent variable on the dependent variable (Singh
and chaudhary, 1979). Therefore, path coefficient analysis has been used by many researchers
Vidhyavathi et al. (2005); (Goksoy and Turan, 2007). The path analysis was done following
Dewey and Lu (1959). The direct and indirect effects at genotypic level for genotypes were
estimated by taking seed yield as dependent variable, using path co-efficient analysis
suggested by Wright (1921) and Dewey and Lu (1959).

Rij = Pij+ Σrikpkj

Where: - rij = Mutual association between the independent trait (i) and dependent trait (j) as
measured by the correlation coefficient.
Pij = Component of direct effects of the independent trait (i) on the dependent variable (j) as
measured by the path coefficient and,
Σrikpkj = Summation of components of indirect effect of a given independent trait (i) on the
given dependent trait (j) via all other independent traits (k).
Residual effect estimated by the formula
√1 – R2; Where: - R2 =Σpijrij
Where, R2is the residual factor, Pij is the direct effect of yield by ith trait, and rij is the
Correlation of yield with the ith trait.

21
3.5.7. Principal Component Analysis (PCA)

Principal component analysis was performed using correlation matrix of in order to examine
the relationships among the quantitative characters that are correlated with each other’s by
converting into uncorrelated characters called principal components.

C1 b11 X 1  b12  b1 p Xp 

Where, C1 = the subject’s score on principal component 1 (the first component extracted);
b1p = the regression coefficient (or weight) for observed variable p, as used in creating
principal component 1; Xp = the subject’s score on observed variable

3.5.2. Genetic Distance and Cluster Analysis

Clustering of genotypes into different clusters based 15 quantitative traits was carried out by
using average linkage method and the appropriate numbers of clusters were determined from
the values of Pseudo F and Pseudo T. Genetic distance between and within clusters were
calculated using Mahalanobs’ (1936) generalized distance statistics as per the following
formula and the values calculated between pairs of clusters were considered as chi-square
values and tested for significance using p-degrees of freedom, where ‘’ p’’ indicates the
number of traits used
𝑫𝒊𝒋𝟐 = 𝐗𝐢 − 𝐗𝐣 `𝐒 −𝟏 𝐗𝐢 − 𝐗𝐣 Whereas;
Dij2 is the distance between groups i and j; Xi and Xj are the vectors of the means of the traits
for groups i and j and S-1 is the pooled within groups variance- covariance matrix..

3.5.8. Shannon-weaver diversity index

The Shannon-Weaver diversity index was used to calculate phenotypic diversity:

H’= -pi ln pi

Whereas, Pi is the relative frequency in the ith category of the jth trait. H’ of 0 will indicate that
is monomorphic, i.e. all individual belong to one and the same category (clan), where as H’ of
1 was used to indicate maximum diversity i.e. individuals are equally dispersed among the n
class.

22
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Analysis of Variance

Mean squares from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) of twenty five sunflower genotypes for
fifteen quantitative traits studied are presented in Appendix Table 1 and 2 for individual
location. The results of analysis of variance revealed that genotypes exhibited significant
(P˂0.01 or P<0.05) differences for all traits at Adadi except head diameter, leaf number and
seed filling percentage. At Holetta significant differences among genotypes was recorded for
all traits except for number of ray floret and stem diameter, days to maturity and seed yield of
sunflower.

Mean squares from combined analysis of variances for quantitative traits are presented in
Table 5. The pooled analysis of variances showed that there was significant (P<0.01or 0.05)
differences among genotypes for all traits (Table 5) indicating thereby the presence of
variability in the studied genotypes for these characters. This find is in confirmatory with the
finding of Manjula et al. (2001) wich reported the significant difference among sunflower
genotypes for plant height, head diameter, oil content and seed yield. The mean square due to
genotype x location (GxL) interaction were significant (P˂0.01 or P˂0.05 ) for yield per plant,
days to flowering, plant height, yield per hectare, oil yield, days to maturity, oil content, head
diameter and leaf number. Non-significant (GxL) interactions for ray floret number, petiole
length, hundred seed weight and stem diameter (Table 5) indicates similar ranks of the
genotypes in performance over the two locations. This makes the selection decision easier for
these traits.

Significant (P˂0.05) (GxL) Interaction observed in this study for leaf number, plant height,
head diameter, days to maturity, days to flowering, number of seed per plant, seed filling
percentage, yield per plant, yield per hectare, oil content and oil yield per hectare indicated
the deferential response of genotypes for those traits at each location. Similar findings were
reported by different scholars. Sujatha et al. (2002) reported significant difference of (GxL)
for plant height, seed yield, oil yield and hundred seed weight and for oil content. Salah and
Abdellah (2009) also reported significant (GxL) interaction for seed yield of sunflower
genotypes. Significant differences in plant height, days to maturity, head diameter, stem
diameter, seed weight, seed yield and oil yield were reported by Shah Savari et al. (2010).

23
Table 5: Mean square from analysis of variance for different sources of variation and the corresponding CV for quantitative traits of
sunflower genotypes tested at Adadi and Holetta

Mean squares
Block
Rep(L) (Rep) Geno Loc*Geno Error CV Lsd
TRAIT LOC(1) (2) (8) (24) (24) (40) (%) (0.05) Mean R-Square

Ray floret number (no.) 542.9** 28.1 23.9 40.81* 11.973 ns 15.3 8.1 5.6 48 0.76
Leaf number(no.) 324** 9 2.22 4.94* 4.542* 1.8815 5.7 1.96 24 0.895
Petiole length (cm) 66.75** 0.012 1.49 3.242* 1.071 ns 0.953 7.08 1.395 14 0.832
Head diameter(cm) 5.36 ns 5.34 5.87 4.83* 3.98* 1.39 5.74 1.69 20.5 0.84
Stem diameter (cm) 0.12* 0.002 0.12 0.058* 0.0284 ns 0.0287 6.46 0.24 2.63 0.73
Plant height(cm) 11815.7** 110.25 121.5 791.05** 289.65** 71.33 4.6 12.07 184.03 0.932
Days to flowering(days) 2470.1** 47.61 6.21 84.83** 22.9** 5.77 2.34 3.43 95 0.958
Days to Maturity(days) 3540.2** 68.9 2.665 11.79* 6.42* 3.28 1.2 2.59 152 0.97
Number of seed / plant 3018211.29 79.21 8830.4 69169.3** 22915.3* 11207.3 10.46 151.9 1022 0.925
Seed filling percentage 11.614* 2.585 1.11 7.71* 3.99* 2.17 1.54 2.11 95.5 0.804
Hundred seed weight(g) 14.22 0.81 1.06 2.07** 0.653ns 0.53 12.01 1.04 6.1 0.82
Yield per plant (g) 14400** 4.75 23.44 120.77** 112.47** 28.76 10.2 7.66 52.75 0.948
yield/ha(kg) 954646.24* 135085.65 42855.9 641897.4** 511191.6** 30331.6 8.95 248.9 2000 0.965
Oil content (%) 292.1** 0.073 1.88 46.57** 9.71* 3.085 5.2 2.51 34 0.941
Oil yield/ha(kg) 4018.04** 170.8 25.4 797.9** 591.14** 46.7 10.3 9.8 59.7 0.96
Whereas, **, highly significant at 0.001, * significant at 0.05, ns, non-significant at 0.05, CV, coefficient of variation, df, degree of freedom,

24
4.2. Range and Mean Performance

The range and mean values for the twenty five sunflower genotypes studied in both locations
are presented in Table 6. Whereas mean performance of the studied genotypes are shown in
appendix Table 3. Yield per hectare ranged from 1319.7 kg to 2846 kg. Fourty eight Percent
of the genotypes gave above the grand mean (2000 kg/ha). The highest seed yield per hectare
was observed for genotype Brazil Long Seed PL9-SPS-4/4 followed by VSFH-1044-SPS-3/4,
NK-KONDI-SPS-7/4, and VSFH-1044-SPS-1/4, while the minimum seed yield per hectare
was recorded for Brazil long seed PL2-SPS-3-4. Variability manifested by seed yield might
be due to genetic variation among the tested materials as well as influence of genotype x
location interaction.

Number of seed per plant ranged from 771 to 1326. Maximum number of seed per plant was
obtained from genotype Adadi-3-SPS-5-4 (1326) followed by genotype NK-NEOMA-SPS-
2/4 (1205) while the minimum number of seed per plant was recorded for genotype Brazil
Long Seed PL6-SPS-7/4 (771). Oil yield ranged from 39.2 kg to106.14 kg. The highest oil
yield was recorded for genotype VSFH-1044-SPS-3/4 while the minimum was observed for
Brazil Long seed PL2-SPS-3/4. Oil content ranged between 27.05% - 40.8%. The highest oil
content was obtained from genotype NK-FERTI-SPS-1/4 (40.8), followed by VSFH-1044-
SPS-10/4 (38.8), VSFH-1044-SPS-3/4 (38.1) and NK-NEOMA-SPS-7/4 (38.07). The lowest
oil content was recorded for genotype Brazil Long seed PL4-SPS-4/4 (27.05).

The range for yield per plant varied from 39.2 g to 64.35 g. The highest yield per plant was
recorded for genotypeAdadi-3-SPS-5/4 (64.35 g) where as the lowest yield per plant was
obtained from genotype NK-KONDI-SPS-2/4 (39.2 g). Phonological traits, days to flowering
and days to maturity ranged from 148 to156, 87 to 103, respectively. Among the tested
genotypes, 12% displayed days to maturity lower than the grand mean indicating that those
genotypes were early maturing as compared to the others. The highest days to flowering was
recorded by genotype NK-NEOMA-SPS-7/4 (103) while the lowest was recorded by
genotype VSFH-1044-SPS-9/4 (87). The maximum days to maturity was recorded for
genotype NK-KONDI-SPS-7/4. The genotype NK-KONDI-SPS-2/4 was early maturing with
the shortest days to maturity. Plant height ranged between 149cm -211cm. The maximum

25
plant height was recorded for genotype NK-FERTI-SPS-8/1 (211cm) while the minimum was
recorded for genotype Brazil Long Seed PL6-SPS-7/4 (149 cm).
The maximum numbers of leaves per plant were observed for genotype Adadi-3-SPS-9/4 (27)
followed by genotypes VSFH-1044-SPS-1/4 (26), NK-FERTI-SPS-4/4 (26) and Oissa (26).
The minimum leave numbers were obtained from genotype NK-KONDI-SPS-7/4 (21).

Generally, the results obtained from this study indicated that traits which showed wide range
would be expected to have variation among the genotypes that could be utilized in breeding
program for improvement of the desired traits in sunflower.

4.3. Variance components

4.3.1. Genotypic and Phenotypic Coefficients of variation

Coefficient of variation also known as relative variability calculated as percentage is a

measure to investigate that how much variability exists for the selection. The phenotypic
coefficients of variance (PCV) were ranged from 1.4 % for days to maturity to 31.21 % for oil
yield (kg) per hectare where as the genotypic coefficients of variance (GCV) were ranged
from 0.762% for days to maturity to 12.04 % for oil yield (Table 6). The present study
suggests that phenotypic coefficients of variation were higher than their corresponding
genotypic coefficient of variation for all the studied traits. This indicated the influence of
environment on the expression of these traits.

According to Siva Subramanian and Menon (1973) phenotypic coefficients of variance (PCV)
and genotypic coefficients of variance (GCV) Values more than 20%, less than 10% and
between 10 % and 20 % are regarded as high, low and medium respectively. Based on this,
phenotypic coefficient of variance (PCV) was high for oil yield (31.21 %) and seed yield (kg)
per hectare (26.85 %). Moderate PCV and GCV were recorded for number of seed per plant.

High to moderate values of PCV and GCV observed in the present study indicated the
existence of variability for such characters and selection may be effective based on these
characters. Low PCV and GCV were recorded for leaf number, days to maturity, head
diameter, plant height, days to flowering, days to maturity and seed filling percentage
indicating that selection with these characters may not be effective. In this study the value of
GCV was close to the value of PCV for all traits except seed yield per hectare and oil yield

26
per hectare indicating high contribution of genotypic effect for phenotypic expression of those
characters. Therefore expressions of characters under study were less influenced by
environmental factors excluding seed yield and oil yield per hectare wich are highly
influenced by environment.

This result is in accordance to the finding of Gangappa (1991) who reported low variability
for these characters. But not in agreement with the findings of Reddy and Reddy (2006) who
reported high PCV and GCV for these traits. This difference may be due to differences in the
studied genotypes and locations. Genotypic coefficient of variance provides information on the
genetic variability present in quantitative characters in base population, but it is not possible
to determine the amount of the variation that was heritable only from the genotypic
coefficients of variance. Genetic coefficient of variance together with heritability estimates
would give the best picture of the amount of advance to be expected from selection (Burton
and Devane, (1953). Therefore, estimation of the heritable portion of the variation could be
more useful.

4.3.2 .Heritability and genetic advance

Heritability and genetic advance as the percentage of the mean (GAM) at 5% selection
intensity are presented in Table 6. Broad sense heritability ranged from 3.56 % - 65.32% for
yield per plant to oil content respectively. According to Johnson et al. (1955) heritability
values more than 60% are regarded as high whereas, values less than 30% are considered to
be low and values between 30% and 60% are to be moderate. Based on this high heritability
was recorded for oil content (65.32%). The results were high due to high genotypic influence
and low environmental influence. Therefore Selection based on phenotypic performance of
this trait may help to improve this trait. Medium heritability was recorded for days to maturity
(30.01), plant height (46.39), days to flowering (57.49), number of seed per plant (54.56),
petiole length, (49.36), stem diameter (41.67), hundred seed weight (48.9) and seed filling
percentage (31.63). Low heritability was observed for number of leaves per plant (4.22), head
diameter (9.64), yield per plant (3.56), oil yield per hectare14.89), number of ray floret
(10.75) and seed yield per hectare (11.84). This indicated that those traits are highly
influenced by environment. Therefore, direct selection based on phenotypic performance may
not be effective to improve those traits.

27
The expected genetic advance as percent of the mean ranged from 0.56 for number of leaves
per plant to 17.89 for number of seed per plant. According to Johnson et al. (1955) genetic
advance was classified as low (>10), medium (10-20) and high (>20). Number of seed per
plant (17.89), oil content (14.86), hundred seed weight (14.1) and oil yield per hectare (10.02)
showed moderate genetic advance as percent of mean. Low genetic advance was observed for
leaf number (0.56), head diameter (1.44), days to flowering (6.47), days to maturity (0.87),
seed filling percentage (1.17), seed yield per plant(1.06), number of ray floret (3.78), petiole
length (7.62), stem diameter (5.06) and seed yield (kg) per hectare (6.27) (Table 6).

In order to estimate the selection effects, heritability accompanied with genetic advance is
useful than heritability alone Hanson (2003). High heritability (65.32) along with moderate
genetic advance as percent of mean (14.86) observed for oil content in this study revealed the
involvement of both additive and non-additive gene actions in the inheritance of this trait.
Therefore this trait can be improved through progeny selection or any modified selection
procedures aiming to exploit the additive gene effects. This finding is in agreement with the
finding of Hassan et al. (2012) which reported high heritability with moderate genetic
advance as percent of mean for oil content. Panse (1957) viewed that if a character is
governed by non-additive gene action it may give high heritability but low genetic advance,
whereas, if it is governed by additive gene action heritability and genetic advance would be
high.

28
 Table 6: Heritability, genetic advance and coefficients of variations in 25 sunflower genotypes
studied at Holetta and Adadi

PCV GCV H2 GAM

σ2 g σ2 p σ2 i σ2 e
TRAIT MEAN±SD % % % GA %
LN 24±2.69 0.1 2.37 1.33 0.94 6.41 1.32 4.22 0.134 0.56
HD 20.5±1.82 0.213 2.21 1.295 0.7 7.25 2.25 9.64 0.295 1.44
PH 184±20.62 125.35 270.21 109.16 35.7 8.93 6.1 46.39 15.71 8.54
DF 95±8 15.5 26.96 8.56 2.9 5.46 4.14 57.49 6.15 6.47
DM 152±7 1.34 4.55 1.57 1.64 1.4 0.762 30.01 1.32 0.87
NSPP 1022±257 14434 26453.3 6415.65 5603.65 15.91 11.76 54.56 182.8 17.89
SFP 95.5±2.12 0.93 2.94 0.91 1.1 1.8 1.01 31.63 1.12 1.17
YPP 52.75±14.93 2.075 58.3 41.85 14.38 14.47 3.93 3.56 0.56 1.06
OC 34±5.62 9.21 14.1 3.31 1.54 11.04 8.93 65.32 5.05 14.86
OYPH 59.7±9.21 51.69 347.26 272.22 23.35 31.21 12.04 14.89 5.98 10.02
YPH 2000±19.3 32676.45 288272 240430 15165.8 26.85 9.04 11.34 125.42 6.27
RN 48±3 7.21 67.1 52.2 7.65 17.06 5.6 10.75 1.82 3.78
PL 14±2.8 0.543 1.1 0.06 0.48 7.49 5.26 49.36 1.07 7.62
SD 2.63±0.91 0.01 0.024 0.0002 0.014 5.89 3.8 41.67 0.133 5.06
HSW 6.1±1.2 0.354 0.724 0.1 0.27 13.95 9.75 48.9 0.86 14.1
Whereas,
σ2 g =genotypic variance, σ2 p= phenotypic variance, σ2 i= variance of interaction, σ2 e=
environmental varience, GCV= genotypic coefficient of variation, PCV= phenotypic
coefficient of variation,H2=Heritability in broad sense, GA= genetic advance, GAM= genetic
advance as percent of mean, YPP= yield per plant, OC= oil content, OYPH= oil yield per
hectare, YPH= seed yield per hectare, SFP= Seed filling percentage, NSPP=number of seed
per plant, DM=days to maturity, DF= days to flowering, PH= plant height, LNPP=number of
leaves per plant, and HD= head diameter, RN=number of ray floret per head, PL= Petiole
length, SD=stem diameter and HSWT= hundred seed weight.

29
4.4. Association of traits

4.4.1. Correlation of seed yield with other yield related traits

Correlation of seed yield with yield related traits are presented in (Table 7 and 8.). Seed yield
per hectare had positive and significant genotypic correlation with number of seed per plant
(0.510), yield per plant (0.610), head diameter (0.650) and seed filling percentage (0.660).
Based on this finding, the high yielding sunflower genotype is the genotype with a big head to
hold more number of and heavy seeds. This indicated that correlation of these traits with seed
yield could be fruit fully utilized to enhance the yield potential of sunflower. This result was
supported by the findings of Tahir et al. (2002) which reported the positive significant
correlation of seed filling percentage, head diameter and hundred seed weight with seed yield.

Positive and significant phenotypic correlation of seed yield per hectare with, petiole length
90.220), yield per plant (0.370), number of seed per plant (0.310), head diameter (0.290),
plant height (0.25, seed filling percentage (0.560) and hundred seed weight (0.240) was also
observed (Table 6). This implies considering of these traits in selection is important to
improve seed yield per hectare. Abbas et al. (2014) reported the significant correlation of seed
yield with head diameter, plant height, hundred seed weight and oil content. The genotypic
and phenotypic significant positive association of seed yield with head diameter, oil content,
hundred seed weight, number of seeds per head, days to maturity and plant height were
reported by Prasad et al. (2006).

The positive association of seed yield with plant height, hundred seed weight and oil content
were also reported by Kaya et al. (2008). Dasgustu (2000) reported significant and positive
correlation of hundred seed weight and plant height with seed yield. The negative phenotypic
association of days to fifty percent flowering with seed yield was also observed by Arshad et
al. (2007). Doddamani et al. (1997) reported significant positive correlation of 100 seed
weight, plant height and stem diameter with seed yield in 47 sunflower genotypes.

30
4.4.2. Character Association among yield component traits

4.4.2.1. Phenotypic Correlation among yield related traits

Phenotypic correlation coefficients among yield related traits are presented in (Table.7).
Significant and positive phenotypic association was observed between head diameter, oil
content, plant height, days to maturity and yield per plant. Days to fifty percent flowering
showed negative phenotypic association with number of seeds per plant Table 7. Negative and
significant phenotypic association was observed between leaf number and days to flowering.
This indicated that early flowering genotypes had less number of leaves as compared to late
flowering genotypes. significant positive phenotypic association were also observed between
ray floret number and leaf number, petiole length, yield per plant, number of seed per plant,
oil content, plant height and days to maturity. Leaf number showed significant phenotypic
association with petiole length, yield per plant, number of seed per plant, days to maturity, oil
content and hundred seed weight. Negative and non-significant phenotypic association was
observed between leaf number and stem diameter. Syed et al. (2004) reported positive
phenotypic correlation between plant heights, days to maturity, oil content and head diameter.
Positive associations between plant height and days to maturity were reported by various
researchers (Mahmood and Mehdi 2003). Giriraj et al. (1979) reported that plant height, head
diameter and 100 seed weight had positive correlation with seed yield and among them at
phenotypic and genotypic level. Ashok et al. (2000) studied 40 sunflower hybrids and
reported positive and significant genotypic and phenotypic correlation among seed yield per
plant, days to maturity, plant height, diameter of stem and head diameter.

31
 Table 7: Phenotypic correlation among fifteen quantitative traits in 25 sunflower genotypes studied at Holetta and Adadi

Variable RFN LN PL YPP NSPP OC HD SD PH DF DM SFP HSWT OYPH YPH

RFN 0.410** 0.398** 0.480** 0.581** 0.342* 0.151 ns -0.155 ns 0.401** -0.193 ns 0.532** -0.060 ns 0.041 ns 0.258ns 0.150 ns
LN 0.451** 0.570** 0.432** 0.201* 0.092 ns -0.091 ns 0.491** -0.345* 0.691** 0.136 ns 0.350* 0.108ns 0.064 ns
PL 0.561** 0.571** 0.290* 0.201* 0.032 ns 0.543** -0.112 ns 0.550** 0.194 ns 0.195 ns 0.306* 0.223*
YPP 0.810** 0.330* 0.426** -0.011 ns 0.501** -0.461** 0.732** 0.350* 0.520** 0.456** 0.293*
NSPP 0.514** 0.432** 0.050 ns 0.520** -0.240* 0.661** 0.142 ns 0.091 ns 0.463** 0.311*
OC 0.028 ns -0.087 ns 0.442** 0.001 ns 0.430** -0.123ns -0.223* 0.451** 0.071 ns
HD 0.112 ns 0.182 ns 0.075 ns 0.097 ns 0.199* 0.281* 0.246* 0.371*
SD -0.002ns 0.311* -0.094ns 0.152 ns 0.035 ns 0.013ns 0.085 ns
PH 0.021 ns 0.601** 0.080 ns 0.062 ns 0.376* 0.250*
DF -0.481** -0.099 ns -0.390** 0.112ns -0.101 ns
DM 0.098 ns 0.270* 0.281* 0.121ns
SFP 0.530** 0.441** 0.562**
HSWT 0.094ns 0.240*
OYPH 0.873**
YPH
Whereas **, *, ns; are significant at 0.01, significant at 0.05 and non-significant at 0.005 respectively. RFN=number of ray floret, LN=number of leaves per
plant, Petiole length, YPP=Seed yield per plant, NSPP=number of seed per plant, OC=Oil content, HD=Head diameter, SD=Stem diameter, PH=Plant height,
DF=Days to flowering, DM=Days to maturity, SFP= Seed filling percentage, OYPH=Oil yield per hectare and HSWT= Hundred seed weight

32
4.3.2.2. Genotypic correlation among yield related traits

Genotypic correlation coefficients among yield related traits are presented in Table 8. Number
of seed per plant showed positive and significant genotypic association with oil content, head
diameter, stem diameter, plant height, days to fifty percent flowering, yield per plant and days
to maturity. Negative and significant genotypic association was found between number of
seed per plant and seed filling percentage and hundred seed weight. Oil content showed
negative genotypic association with hundred seed weight and positively correlated with plant
height and days to flowering at genotypic level.

This result was in agreement with the findings of Toksimovic et al. (2004) which reported
negative correlation of one hundred seed weight with oil content. Oil content had also showed
negative and non-significant genotypic correlation was also found between head diameter and
seed filling percentage. Habib et al. (2007) observed significant positive correlation between
days to maturity, plant height and oil content on one side and oil yield on the other side
whereas days to flower initiation was negatively correlated with oil yield.

The relationship between ray floret number and number of seed per plant was positive and
significant. Number of ray floret showed negative and significant genotypic correlation with
hundred seed weight. Negative and non-significant genotypic correlation was also observed
between ray floret number, stem diameter and seed filling percentage. Dan et al. (2012)
reported positive and significant association of oil yield with seed yield per plant, plant
height, head diameter, volume weight, 100-seed weight and oil content. Leaf number had
negative and non-significant genotypic association with number of seed per plant, oil content,
head diameter and yield per hectare. Husain et al. (2012) reported Positive significant
genotypic association between plant height and stem diameter which is in agreement with the
present study.

33
 Table 8: Genotypic correlation among fifteen characters in 25 Sunflower genotypes Studied at Holetta and Adadi

Variable RFN LN PL YPP NSPP OC HD SD PH DF DM SF HSWT OYPH YPH

RFN 0.015 ns 0.240ns 0.151ns 0.550* 0.250 ns 0.132 ns -0.198ns 0.261 ns 0.260 ns 0.143 ns -0.361 ns -0.430* 0.215ns 0.131 ns
LN 0.171ns 0.065ns -0.121ns -0.011ns -0.161ns 0.070 ns 0.312 ns 0.161 ns 0.260 ns 0.027ns 0.181 ns -0.124ns -0.120ns
PL 0.391ns 0.431* 0.290 ns 0.190 ns 0.371 ns 0.580* 0.470* 0.530* 0.092ns -0.096ns 0.261ns 0.171 ns
YPP 0.560* -0.013ns 0.711** 0.070 ns 0.195 ns 0.079 ns 0.182 ns 0.570* 0.350 ns 0.514* 0.651*
NSPP 0.510* 0.530* 0.225 ns 0.460* 0.450* 0.391* -0.065* -0.570* 0.481* 0.513*
OC -0.038 ns 0.051 ns 0.416 * 0.490* 0.362 ns -0.340 ns -0.620* 0.433* 0.006 ns
HD 0.330 ns 0.134 ns 0.260 ns 0.173ns 0.321 ns 0.071ns 0.28ns 0.612*
SD 0.510* 0.631* 0.551* 0.310ns 0.042 ns 0.123ns 0.131ns
PH 0.680* 0.610* -0.041ns -0.331ns 0.35ns 0.232ns
DF 0.760** 0.110 ns 0.440* 0.163ns 0.022ns
DM -0.005 ns -0.265ns 0.238ns 0.131ns
SFP 0.570* 0.451* 0.664*
HSWT 0.098 0.194ns
OYPH 0.897**
YPH

WHERE, RFN=number of ray floret, LN=number of leaves per plant, Petiole length, YPP=Seed yield per plant, NSPP=number of seed per plant,
OC=Oil content, HD=Head diameter, SD=Stem diameter, PH=Plant height, DF=Days to flowering, DM=Days to maturity, SFP= Seed filling
percentage, OYPH=Oil yield per hectare and HSWT= Hundred seed weight

34
4.4. 3.Path coefficient analysis

The simple correlation coefficients were partitioned further by the path coefficients analysis
in to direct effects and indirect effects via alternate characters. For path analysis, seed yield
per hectare was taken as dependent trait and other yield related traits as independent traits.
The phenotypic and genotypic direct and indirect effects of traits on seed yield per hectare are
presented in Table 9 and 10, respectively.

4.4.3.1. Phenotypic path coefficient analysis

Phenotypic path coefficient analysis showed that Oil yield per hectare (0.862) had the highest
positive direct effect on seed yield per hectare followed by hundred seed weight (0.147) and
seed filling percentage (0.142). The indirect effects of other characters through these traits
were also positive. These traits also showed positive and significant phenotypic correlation
with seed yield per hectare. Therefore, considering these traits as selection criteria will be an
opportunity in improvement of seed yield per hectare. From the result of this study giving
attention for heavy seeds in phenotypic selection for yield improvement is important.

Chaudary and Anand (1985); patil et al. (1996a) reported positive direct effect of hundred
seed weight and seed filling percentage on seed yield. According to Singh and Chaudhary
(1985), if the correlation coefficient is positive but the direct effect is negative or negligible,
the indirect effects might be the causal factor of correlation. Negative direct effect on seed
yield per hectare were observed for height of plant (-0.011), petiole length (-0.012), total
number of seed per plant (-0.017) and head diameter (-0.162). Similarly, indirect effects of
other characters through, these traits were also negative.

Negative phenotypic direct effect of plant height, petiole length, total number of seed per
plant and head diameter on seed yield per hectare indicates direct selection of these traits may
be ineffective in improvement of seed yield per hectare. The positive correlation observed
between these traits and seed yield at phenotypic level is explainable by positive indirect
effect they produce through, seed filling percentage, seed yield per plant and one hundred
seed weight. Negative direct effect of plant height on seed yield was reported by Gowda
(1994).

35
Table 9: Phenotypic path coefficient analysis: the direct (diagonal) and indirect (off-
diagonal) effects of other traits on seed yield per hectare in Sunflower genotypes at Holetta
and Adadi

PL HD NSPP YPP PH SFP HSWT OYPH Pr

0.223*
PL -0.012 -0.091 -0.01 0.02 -0.006 0.028 0.029 0.265
0.371*
HD -0.007 -0.162 -0.014 0.039 -0.005 0.05 0.077 0.393
0.311*
NSPP -0.007 -0.132 -0.017 0.04 -0.006 0.021 0.013 0.399
0.293*
YPP -0.003 -0.069 -0.0074 0.092 -0.002 0.028 0.042 0.212
0.2545*
PH -0.0065 -0.083 -0.009 0.017 -0.011 0.012 0.01 0.325
0.562**
SFP -0.002 -0.057 -0.0024 0.018 -0.001 0.142 0.078 0.386
0.2403*
HSWT -0.002 -0.085 -0.002 0.026 -0.0007 0.076 0.147 0.081
0.873**
OYPH -0.004 -0.074 -0.008 0.023 -0.004 0.064 0.014 0.862
Residual, R=0.42

Where, as, PL= Petiole length, HD=Head diameter, NSPP=number of seed per plant,
YPP=Seed yield per plant, PH=plant height, SFP= Seed filling percentage, HSWT=Hundred
seed weight and OYPH=Oil yield per hectare.

4.4.3.2. Genotypic path coefficient analysis

In this study, path coefficient analysis showed that oil yield per hectare (0.62) exerted the
highest genotypic direct effect on seed yield per hectare. The indirect effect of head diameter,
number of seed per plant and seed filling percentage through it were also high. The direct
effect of seed yield per plant (0.585) on seed yield per hectare was also high and followed by
seed filling percentage (0.492) and total number of seed per plant (0.211). The indirect effect
of other traits through seed filling percentage was less. This suggests that the high correlation
it showed with seed yield per hectare is explainable largely by its direct influence on seed
yield per hectare.

36
Seed filling percentage, oil yield, seed yield per plant and number of seed per plant showed
positive and significant genotypic correlation with seed yield per hectare. The positive direct
effect of these traits implies that direct selection of these traits can be effective in the
improvement of see yield per hectare of sunflower. The indirect effects of other characters
through these traits were also positive except the indirect effect of seed filling percentage
through total number of seed per plant and the indirect effect of total number of seed per plant
through seed filling percentage which were negative.

The genotypic direct effect of head diameter (-0562) on seed yield per hectare was negative.
The indirect effects of other characters through head diameter on seed yield per hectare were
also negative. This indicates, taking this trait as selection criteria in improvement of seed
yield per hectare may not be effective. Increase in head size may increase the husk percentage
and the incidence of empty seeds Skoric (1992). This result is in accordance with the findings
of Shiva ram (1986) who stated a negative direct effect of head diameter on seed yield of
sunflower. This result is in confirmatory with the finding of Illah (2006) who reported
positive genotypic direct effect number of seed per plant, seed filling percentage and plant
height of the same crop. Lal et al. (1997) reported positive direct effect of number of seed per
plant on seed yield.

Generally, if correlation between dependent and independent character is due to the direct
effect of a character, it reflect a true relationship between them. Therefore selection can be
done to improve the dependent character. From the result of genotypic path coefficient
analysis in this study selection pressure should be given on oil yield per hectare, seed filling
percentage, seed yields per plant and number of seed per head in positive direction for
improvement of seed yield per hectare in breeding for yield improvement program. The
residual effect indicates how much the causal factors account for the variability of
independent character (Singh and Chaudhary, 1977). The residual factor of genotypic path
coefficient analysis was 0.142. This indicated that the yield related characters that found in
this study explain 85.8% of the variability in the yield. The remaining is due to other traits not
considered in this study.

37
Table 10: Genotypic path coefficient Analysis: the direct (diagonal) and indirect (off-
diagonal) effects of other traits on seed yield per hectare in Sunflower genotypes

HD NSPP YPP SFP OYPH rg

HD -0.561 0.118 0.417 0.281 0.357 0.612*

NSPP -0.315 0.211 0.312 -0.032 0.337 0.513*

YPP -0.4 0.113 0.585 0.158 0.195 0.651*

SFP -0.32 -0.014 0.188 0.492 0.318 0.664*

OYPH -0.289 0.103 0.165 0.225 0.692 0.897**

R=0.142

When, YPP=Yield per plant, NSPP=Total Number of seed per plant, HD=Head diameter,
SFP=Seed filling percentage and OY= Oil yield.

4.5. Principal Component Analysis

In the present study five principal components which account for most of the variability have
been extracted, since five components had Eigen value greater than one. They account for
84.72 % of the total variability in the original data (Table 11). Interpretation of the principal
components is depends on finding which variables are most strongly correlated with each
component, i.e., which of these values are large in magnitude, the farthest from zero in either
direction influence the clustering more than those with lower value closer to zero (Chahal and
Gosal, 2002).

As per Kline, (2002) loadings of 0.30 or higher can be considered important. The first
principal component which accounted for 31.9 % of total variability among genotypes were
chiefly originated from traits such as yield per plant, head diameter, stem diameter, Ray floret
number, yield per plant, number of seed per plant, yield per hectare, head diameter, stem
diameter, plant height, days to flowering, days to maturity and seed filling percentage .

Likewise the Second principal component (PC2) which accounted for 22.72 % of the total
variability among genotypes were attributed to discriminatory traits such as yield per plant,
yield per hectare, oil yield per hectare, seed filling percentage and hundred seed weight.

38
Conversely, leaf number, oil content, plant height, number of seed per plant and days to
maturity have the highest negative loadings in PC2. The third principal component which
contributed 12.25% of total variability among genotypes was due to discriminatory traits
namely, number of seed per plant, head diameter and stem diameter. Whereas seed yield per
hectare, oil yield per hectare and oil content are chief contributors with negative loading in
PC3. The fourth principal component which accounted for 10.11 % of total variability among
genotypes were due to leaf number, days to maturity, seed filling percentage and hundred
seed weight while, ray floret number and head diameter contributed negatively to PC4.
Finally leaf number contributed chiefly to the variation of PC5 (1.08 %).

Of all quantitative traits studied days to maturity (days) and seed filling percentage (%)
contributed to the variation in three principal components out of the five principal
components. The present study showed that the sunflower genotypes manifested variation for
the traits studied. This suggests opportunity for genetic improvement through selection
directly from genotypes and or selection of diverse parents for hybridization program.

Sahkar et al. (2004) applied principal component analysis in his cultivar development
program and stated the potential use of principal component in the selection of superior
genotypes in sunflower. Kholgi et al. (2011) also applied principal component analysis for
estimation of genetic diversity in sunflower. Nazir et al. (2013) reviewed numerous yield
related traits and reported the contribution of the first two components in assessment of total
variation of sunflower hybrids.

39
 Table 11: Eigen vectors Eigen values, proportion and cumulative variance for the first five
PCA of 25 sunflower genotypes based on 15 quantitative traits

Eigenvectors
Traits PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4 PC5
Ray floret number(no) 0.43 -0.21 0.03 -0.62 0.23
Leaf number (no) -0.065 -0.3 0.25 0.48 0.74
Petiole length (cm) 0.29 -0.27 0.36 0.2 -0.26
yield(g)/plant 0.69 0.55 0.13 -0.16 0.245
number of seed/plant 0.6 -0.25 0.56 -0.27 0.18
yield(kg)/hectare 0.62 0.62 -0.4 0.016 0.05
Oil content 0.39 -0.571 -0.58 -0.05 0.15
Oil yield(kg)/hectare 0.68 0.24 -0.67 -0.00056 0.122
Head diameter (cm) 0.69 0.27 0.35 -0.349 0.075
stem diameter (cm) 0.68 0.099 0.365 0.135 -0.53
plant height (cm) 0.67 -0.38 -0.061 0.296 0.00123
Days to flowering (days) 0.685 -0.52 0.12 0.29 -0.134
Days to maturity (days) 0.662 -0.374 0.087 0.44 -0.085
Seed filling percentage (%) 0.324 0.83 -0.07 0.32 -0.029
Hundred seed weight (g) -0.21 0.766 0.291 0.314 0.193
Eigen value 4.47 3.18 1.71 1.41 1.08
Proportion 31.9 22.72 12.25 10.11 7.75
Cumulative 31.9 54.62 66.86 76.97 84.72

Head diameter, days to flowering and yield plant and oil yield showed the maximum
contribution in PC1. Whereas, hundred seed weight and yield per hectare in PC2, number of
seed per plant, hundred seed weight and leaf number in PC3, leaf number and days to
maturity in PC4 PC5 showed the maximum contribution. Maximum contribution for number
of leaves per plant, yield per plant and ray floret number were observed in PC5.

4.6. Cluster analysis

The D2 values based on the pooled mean of genotypes resulted in classifying the 25 sunflower
genotypes in to five groups (Table 12) (Appendix figure I). This indicates the tested sunflower
genotypes were moderately divergent. Cluster analysis showed that cluster I comprised of five
genotypes (20%), cluster II consisted of seven (28 %) and cluster III had five (20 %) cluster
IV and cluster V consisted of four genotypes each. The genotypes from France and India were
distributed over all five clusters, which may suggests that genotypes from these countries
were relatively more variable than materials from Brazil. The overlapping of clustering
patterns with respect to the genotypes could be explained as lack of differentiation between
40
 countries due to gene flow. The present findings indicated that in future sunflower germplasm
introduction due emphasis should be given to Indian and Brazilian germplasm.

Table 12: Cluster number and genotypes joined in 25 sunflower genotypes tested at Holetta and
Adadi based on 15 quantitative traits

Cluster proportion Origin

number number of genotypes name of genotype
I 5 NK-KONDI-SPS-2/4 France
0.2 VSFH-2006-SPS-2/4 India
VSFH-1044-SPS-9/4 India
Brazil Long seed PL2-SPS-4/4 Brazil
Brazil Long Seed PL6-SPS-7/4 Brazil

II 7 NK-FERTI-SPS-4/4 France
0.28 NK-KONDI-SPS-7/4 France
Adadi-3-SPS-2/4 India
NK-FERTI-SPS-1/4 France
VSFH-1044-SPS-10/4 India
H-45-SPS-5/4 India
Brazil Long seed PL4-SPS-4/4 Brazil

III 5 NK-KONDI-SPS-7/4 France

0.2 VSFH-1044-SPS-1/4 India
Brazil Long Seed PL9-SPS-4/4 Brazil
VSFH-180-SPS-5/4 India
VSFH-1044-SPS-3/4 India

4 NK-NEOMA-SPS-7/4 France
IV 0.16 VSFH-1044-SPS-2/4 India
NK-FERTI-SPS-7/4 France
Oissa-SPS-3/4 Released

V 4 NK-NEOMA-SPS-2/4 France
0.16 Adadi-3-SPS-9/4 India
NK-FERTI-SPS-8/4 France
Adadi-3-SPS-5/4 India

The genotypes in cluster I showed highest value for number of leaves per plant and average
value for hundred seed weight and seed filling percentage. This cluster has the least values for
yield per plant, yield per hectare, Oil yield per hectare, oil content, head diameter, stem

41
 diameter and ray floret number. Therefore, selection of these traits could not be Favorable
from genotypes of this cluster. The genotypes in this cluster were the shortest and earliest in
flowering. Therefore, selection for genotypes early in flowering and short in height is
favorable from genotypes of this cluster. Genotypes in Cluster two were the tallest and
showed highest mean value for hundred seed weight.

Highest mean value for seed yield per hectare (2499 kg), oil yield per hectare (87.22) and
seed filling percentage (96.76) were observed in cluster three. This indicated that selection
can be made for these traits from genotypes of this cluster. Highest mean value for oil content
(37.2) and least mean value for hundred seed weight (5.29) were obtained from genotypes of
cluster four whereas, average mean value for the rest of the traits were observed in this
cluster. Selection for high oil content from genotypes of this cluster can be an opportunity to
improve oil content of sunflower. Genotypes in Cluster five showed maximum mean value for
number of ray floret (52), yield per plant (59.93 g), number of seed per plant (1183), head
diameter (21.575) and stem diameter. This implies that selection for these traits from
genotypes of this cluster can be effective.

Table 13: Cluster means for fifteen quantitative traits of sunflower genotypes studied at
Holetta and Adadi

Traits I II III IV V

Number of ray floret(no) 46 48 48 49 52

Leaf number(no) 26 25 24 24 25
Yield(g) per plant 45.3 52.9 55.9 50.9 59.93
Number of seed/plant(no) 843 977 1060 1113 1183
Yield(kg)/hectare 1579.6 2036.7 2499 1658.75 2249.75
Petiole length(cm) 12 13 13.6 10.2 12.8
Oil content (%) 30.8 33.98 34.93 37.2 33.49
Oil yield(kg) per hectare 48.66 68.9 87.22 61.63 75.32
Head diameter(cm) 19.85 20.21 21.22 20.36 21.575
Stem diameter(cm) 2.54 2.587 2.61 2.6 2.73
Plant height(cm) 168.75 191.1 182.18 186.4 190.8
Days to flowering (days) 92 96 94 96 96
Days to maturity (days) 151 152 152 152 153
Seed filling percent. (%) 94.6 95.8 96.76 93.57 96.5
Hundred seed weight(g) 6.22 6.43 6.21 5.29 5.92

42
4.6. Genetic distance between clusters

The generalized squared distance among the clusters based on fourteen quantitative traits
were presented in Table 14. The X2=test for the five clusters revealed highly significant inter
cluster distance for all clusters. This implies there is diversity in the performance of the
studied sunflower genotypes. The highest genetic distance was noticed between cluster three
and cluster four (352.79) followed by cluster one and cluster three (308.12), cluster four and
cluster five (233.94), cluster one and cluster five (206.55), cluster two and cluster three
(120.69), cluster two and cluster five (73.67), cluster two and cluster four (68.43), cluster one
and cluster two (65.37), cluster three and cluster five (47.75).

The minimum inter cluster distance between cluster was observed between cluster one and
cluster four. This indicated that there is less diversity between genotypes of clusters one and
cluster four.

Maximum variation is expected from crosses that involve parents from the clusters
characterized by high inter cluster distance. Therefore, crossing genotypes selected from,
cluster three with cluster four; cluster one with cluster three, cluster four with cluster five,
cluster one with cluster five and those from cluster two with cluster three could produce
desirable variation as the inter-cluster distance between them were large. However, the
selection of genotypes should take into account the advantage of each cluster and each
genotype in that cluster depending on the specific objectives of breeding program.

From the results of present study the genotype with highest oil percentage (NK-FERTI-SPS-
1/4) found in Custer II should be considered if the objective is to improve oil content. If the
objective is to improve seed yield per hectare genotype (Brazil Long Seed PL9-SPS-4/4) wich
showed the highest seed yield per hectare in this experiment should be considered in
improvement. Shamshad et al. (2014) studied thirty one germplasm lines of sunflower for
yield and yield related traits and the genotypes were grouped into six clusters based on D2
analysis indicating the presence of high level of diversity in the genetic material. Tyagi et al.
(2013) studied genetic diversity among 18 sunflower inbreed lines and the genotypes were
grouped into five clusters based on D2 analysis.

43
Table14: Intra (diagonal) distance and inter cluster (off-diagonal) distance analysis among 25
sunflower genotypes in five clusters

Clus 1 2 3 4 5

1 3.22 65.37** 308.12** 40.85** 206.55**

2 2.54 120.69** 68.43** 73.67**
3 3.218 352.79** 47.75**
4 3.66 233.94**
5 3.71
2 2
Whereas, *significant at p<0.05 for x =23.68; ** significant at p<0.01 for x =29.14

4.7. Phenotypic frequency and diversity index

All qualitative traits observed in this study were analyzed by using Shannon-information
index and final results were presented in percentage. The results of this study indicated that
sunflower genotypes showed considerable variability for the observed qualitative characters.
All studied qualitative traits showed differences among genotypes except ray floret, leaf shape
and pollen color (Table 15). This result was in agreement with the findings of Tan and Tan
(2011), which stated a large variation for all qualitative traits except pollen fertility. The
studied genotypes showed a wide variation for head shape, bract shape, orientation of leaf
blade, leaf habit of petiole, hairiness at top of stem, leaf blistering and ray floret shape. This
finding is similar to the finding of Makane (2011), which indicated a large variation for all
qualitative traits among accessions, in of sunflower germplasm. The result of this study was
also in conformity of the findings of khoufi et al. (2013) which reported a wide variability of
qualitative traits among different sunflower hybrids and inbreeds lines.

Estimates of diversity for each traits using Shannon-diversity index were presented in
Table.14. Diversity was observed for all traits except pollen color, color of ray floret and leaf
shape. Shannon diversity index values ranged from Zero (0) for these traits to 0.33 for leaf
habit of petiole. Leaf habit of petiole showed the highest diversity followed by leaf serration
(0.323), hairiness at top of stem (0.26), head shape (0.244), orientation of leaf blade (0.197)
and bract shape (0.156). Shape of ray floret (0.12) and branching habit of plants (0.137)
shows low diversity.

44
 Table 15: Some Qualitative traits of 25 sunflower genotypes studied at Holetta and Adadi

Frequency Percentage
Code
No Trait State of genotypes (%) H'
Ivory 1 0
pale yellow 2 0
ray floret color yellow 3 25 100 0
orange 4 0
1 purple 5 0
elongate 1 21 84
ray floret shape ovate(ovoid) 2 0 0
2 rounded 3 4 16 0.12
pale yellow 1 0
pollen color orange 2 0 0
3 yellow 3 25 100
oblong 1 0
lanceolate 2 0
leaf shape cordate 3 0 0
rounded 4 0
4 triangular 5 25 100
fine 1 8 32
leaf serration medium 2 12 48
5 course 3 5 20 0.323
low 1 3 12
hairiness at medium 2 17 68
0.26
top of stem high 3 5 20
6 extremely high 4 0 0
erect 1 0 0
erect to semi erect 2 11 44
semi erect 3 9 36
leaf habit of petiole
semi erect to 4 0.33
horizontal 5 20
7 horizontal 5 0 0
orientation Erect to semi erect 1 11 44
0.197
8 of leaf blade dropping 2 14 66
elongated 1 20 80
bract shape 0.156
9 rounded 2 5 20
concave 1 3 12
head shape flat 2 4 16 0.244
10 convex 3 18 72
not present 1 21 84
Branching habit 0.137
11 half branch 2 4 16

45
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Twenty five sunflower genotypes including one released variety were studied at central
highland of Ethiopia using simple lattice design for 15 quantitative and 11 qualitative traits to
estimate the genetic potential of genotypes, assess the extent of genetic variability, magnitude
of association among characters and determine degree of divergence. SAS software version
9.3 was used in quantitative data analysis whereas qualitative data were subjected to analysis
using Shannon-diversity information. The combined analysis of variance revealed significant
differences among genotypes for all traits except number of ray floret, stem diameter, petiole
length and hundred seed weight. The values of PCV were higher than GCV for all traits. High
PCV was recorded for oil yield per hectare and seed yield per hectare. Moderate PCV and
GCV were observed for number of seed per plant. Both PCV and GCV were low for leaf
number, head diameter, plant height, days to flowering, days to maturity and seed filling
percentage.

Broad sense heritability ranged from 3.56 for seed yield per plant to 65.32 for oil content.
High heritability was observed for plant height, oil content. Moderate heritability was
recorded for Plant height, days to fifteen percent flowering, days to maturity, number of seed
per plant and seed filling percentage whereas, number of leaves per plant, head diameter,
yield per plant, oil yield per hectare and seed yield per hectare showed low heritability. High
heritability coupled with moderate genetic advance was recorded for oil content indicating the
involvement of both additive and non-additive gene actions in the inheritance of these traits.
Moderate heritability with moderate genetic advance was observed for number of seed per
plant. Moderate heritability with Low genetic advance as percent of mean was observed for
days to flowering, days to maturity, plant height and seed filling percentage. Low heritability
and low genetic advance as percent of mean was noticed for number of leaves per plant, seed
yield per plant, head diameter and seed yield per hectare indicating that those traits are highly
influenced by environment and governed by non-additive gene action.

Genotypic correlation coefficients were higher than the phenotypic correlation coefficients.
Positive and significant genotypic correlation was observed between seed yield and number of
seed per plant, yield per plant, head diameter and seed filling percentage. seed yield per

46
hectare showed Positive and significant phenotypic correlation with petiole length , yield per
plant, number of seed per plant, head diameter , plant height , seed filling percentage and
hundred seed weight. By selecting for these traits showing positive and significant correlation
coefficient with seed yield there is a possibility to increase grain yield of sunflower.

Seed filling percentage, seed yield per plant, oil yield per hectare showed positive phenotypic
direct effect on seed yield per hectare. Genotypic path coefficient analysis also revealed that,
seed yield per plant, seed filling percentage and oil yield per hectare had positive direct effect
on seed yield per hectare. The correlation coefficients these traits had with seed yield per
hectare were also positive and significant at both genotypic and phenotypic levels. Since seed
yield per plant, seed filling percentage and oil yield per plant had positive correlation with
seed yield per hectare in the process of selection attention should be given to them as these
characters are helpful for indirect selection.

Five principal components have been extracted, since five components had Eigen value
greater than or equal to one and they accounted for 84.72% of total variation. Twenty five
studied genotypes were grouped in to five clusters based on fifteen quantitative traits. Genetic
diversity was estimated using mahalanobs distance D2. The highest inter cluster distance
(352.79**) was observed between cluster three and cluster four whereas the lowest inter
cluster distance (40.85**) was recorded between cluster one and cluster four. Considerable
variation was observed among genotypes for qualitative traits. Shannon diversity index values
ranged from Zero (0) for color ray floret, leaf shape and pollen color to 0.33 for leaf habit of
petiole. The result showed that there is diversity among the genotypes studied for the
qualitative traits also.

The following conclusions and future line of work can be drawn from the present study.

There were differences in the performance of the genotypes as there were statistically
supported significant differences among genotypes for most of the quantitative characters and
relatively wide range of the mean values for most of the characters. Nevertheless, the level of
the genetic differences for many traits, including grain yield, may not be sufficient to expect
progress in selection. Therefore, in order to improve the diversity of sunflower in Ethiopia,
additional germplasm introduction and subsequent crossing program aimed at developing

47
primary sunflower of better diversity of different genetic background needs to be carried out.
However, the present study considered only a limited number of characters it is recommended
if more important other characters are included and supported by molecular technique.

48
REFERENCES
Antolin, G., F.V.Tinaut, Briceno, V.Casteno, C. Pereez, and Ramirez, 2002. Optimization of
Biodiesel production by Sunflower oil transesterification. Bioresource Technology.

Allard RW (1960). Principles of Plant Breeding. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons.

Anand I J and Chandra S. 1980. Genetic diversity and interrelationships of oil yielding traits
in sunflower. Sunflower Newsletter 4 (1): 5-8.

Anitha G 1995. Studies on the morphological and biochemical characters for identification of
sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) genotypes. M.Sc. (Ag.) thesis submitted to Acharya N.G.
Ranga Agricultural University, Hyderabad.

Arshad, M., Ilyas, M.K. and Khan, M.A. 2007. Genetic divergence and path coefficient
analysis for seed yield traits in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) hybrids. Pakistan Journal of
Botany, 39(6): 2009-2015.

Ashok S, Mohamed Sheriff N and Narayanan S L 2000. Character association and path
coefficient analysis in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L). Crop Research, Hisar 20 (3): 453-
456.

Atta BM, Haq MA, Shah TM (2008). Variation and inter relationships of quantitative traits in
chickpea (Cicerarietinum L.). Pak J Bot 40: 637–647.

Bernardo R., 2002. Breeding for Quantitative Traits in Plants. Stemma Press, Woodbury.

Bukhsh MAAHA, Iqbal J, Kaleem S, Wasaya A, Ishaque M. 2011. Qualitative analysis of

spring planted sunflower hybrids as influenced by varying nutritional area. Pak J Nutr 10:
291-295.

Burke, J. M., K. A. Gardner and L. H. Rieseberg. 2002. The potential for gene flow between
cultivated and wild sunflower (Helianthus annuus L) in the United States. Am. J. Bot. 89(9):
1550- 1552.

Burton GW, Devane EH (1953). Estimating heritability in tall fescue (Festucaarundinaceae)

from replicated clonal material. Agron. J. 45: 478-481.

Chandrababu RJ, Sharma RK (1999). Heritability estimates in almond [Prunus dulcis (Miller)
D.A.Webb]. Sci. Hortic., 79: 237-243.

Chikkadevaiah, Sujatha H L and Nandini 2002. Correlation and path analysis in sunflower.
Helia 25 (37): 109-117.

Dagustu, N., 2002. Correlations and path coefficient analysis of seed yield components
in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Turkish Journal of Field Crops, 7(1): 15-19.

Damodaran T, Hegde DM (2007). Oilseeds situation: a statistical compendium. Directorate of

Oilseed Research, Hyderabad.
49
Dan G, Manivannan N and Vindhiyavarman P (2012). Genetic divergence of inbred lines in
sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Electron J Plant Breed 3(1): 652-56.

Das, A., Basu, D and Goswami, R. 2009. Targeting extension intervention of promotion of
sunflower productivity in Coastal saline zone of West Bengal. J. Crop. Weed.5: 122-26.

Dash S S, Singh D N, Singh D S and Srivastava S 1996. Evaluation of hybrids of sunflower

for quantitative traits. Journal of Applied Biology 6 (1/2): 39-41.

Demirer, T., Özer, I., Koçtürk, Ö.M. and Yesilyurt, Er.A. 2004. Effect of Different Leaf
Fertilizers on Yield and Quality in Sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Pakistan Journal of
Biological Sciences 7(3): 384-388.

Dewey D and Lu K (1959). Correlation and path coefficient analysis of creasted wheat grass
seed production. Agron J 51: 515-518

Doddamani. I.K., Palil, S.A and Ravikumar, R.L., 1997. Relationship of auto gamy and self
fertility with seed yield and yield components in sunflower (Heliantlms animus L.). Helia. 20:
95-102.

Dusanic, N., Miklic, V., Joksimovic, J., Atlagic, J., 2004. Path coefficient analysis of some
yield components of sunflower. Proceedings of the 16th Intern.Sunfl. Conf. Fargo. ND USA. ,
Vol. II: 531- 537.

Ekin Z, Tuncturk M and Yilmaz I 2005. Evaluation of seed yield, oil yield and yield
properties of different sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Hybrid varieties in van, Turkey.
Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences 8 (5): 683-636.

Falconer, D.S., and T. F. C. Mackay, 1996. An Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. 4th edn.
Prentice Hall, London.

Falconer DS (1989). Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. 3rd ed. Harlow, UK: Longman
Scientific and Technical.

Fernandez – Martinez, J., Velasco, L. and Perez – Vich, B., 2004. Progress in the genetic
modification of sunflower oil quality. Proc. of 16th International Sunflower Conference,
Fargo, ND USA, 1-14.

Fick, G. 1978. Breeding and Genetics. In: Sunflower Science and Technology. Agron.19 pp.
279-338. Ed. Carter, J. F.

Fick, GN., 1989. Sunflower. In: Oil Crops of the World: Rbbelen G, Downey RK, Ashri A
(eds.). McGraw-Hill, New York, 301-318.

Gangappa E 1991. Evaluation of sunflower germplasm. Crop Science 15 (1): 77-78.

Gill, H., R.K. Sheoran, A. Shahid, and H. Ahmed. 2003. Correlation for oil yield in sunflower
(Helianthus annuus L.). Nat. J. Plant Imp. 5(1): 43-46.

50
Giriraj K, Vidyashankar T S, Venkatakamu M N and Seetharam A 1979. Path coefficient
analysis of seed yield. Sunflower Newsletter4: 10-12.

Goksoy, A.T. and Turan, Z.M. 2007. Correlations and path analysis of yield components in
synthetic varieties of sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.).Acta Agronomica Hungarica, 55(3):
339-345.

Gowda, J. 1994. Evaluation of sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) germplasm for autogamy,
yield and yield components. M.Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Uni. Agric. Sci., Bangalore. p. 109.

Habib, H., S.S. Mehdi, M.A. Anjum, and R. Ahmed, 2007b. Genetic association and path

Haile Kefene, 1994. Genetic diversity of introduced sunflower (Helianihus annuus L.)
varieties and their performance for oil and seed yield in Ethiopia. MSc (Agri.) Thesis,
Alemaya University of Agricultural Sciences, Ethiopia, 115ppanalysis for oil yield in
sunflower. Int. J. Agric. Biol., 9: 359–361.

Ilahi F (2006). Comparative genetic variability analysis for achene yield and its components
in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). MSc. Thesis, Dept. Pl. Br. Genet., Univ of Agri.,
Faisalabad, Pakistan.

Hamdi A, El-Ghareib AA, Shafey SA, Ibrahim MAM (2003). Genetic variability, heritability
and expected genetic advance for earliness and seed yield from selection in lentil. Egypt J Agr
Res 81: 125–137.

Hanson, G.H., Robinson, H.F. and Comstock, R.E. 1956. Biometrical studies of yield
segregating population of Korean lespedeza. Agron. J., 48: 267-82.

Heiser, C. B., Jr. Taxonomy of Helianthus and Origin of Domesticated Sunflower. 1978. In:
Sunflower Science and Technology. Agron. 19. pp. 31-53. Ed. Carter, J. F.

Hiruy Belaynhe, 1990. Progress in sunflower research in Ethiopia, pp 102-105, In: A. Omran
(ed). Proc. o f the 2nd joint workshop o f oil crops: Sesame and Sunflower sub-network, Cairo,
Egypt.

Hu, J., Seiler, G.and Kole, C., 2010.Genetics, genomics and breeding of sunflower.
Routledge, USA, 342.

Hussain, M., M. Farooq, M. Shehzad, M.B. Khan, A. Wahid and G. Shabir, 2012. Evaluating
the performance of elite sunflower hybrids under saline conditions. Int. J. Agric. Biol., 14:
131–135.

IBPGR, 1985.Discriptors for cultivated and wild sunflower, Rome

Jagdish G V,Virupakshappa K, Venkatramana and Ramaiah 1994. Hand book diagnostic

characteristics of parental lines and hybrids of sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) University of
Agricultural Sciences, GKVK, Bangalore pp 3-6.

51
Joksimovic, J., Atlagic, J., Jovanovic, D., Marinkovic, R., Dusanic, N. and Miklic, V., 2004.
Path coefficient analysis of some head and seed components in sunflower. Proceeding
of 16th International Sunflower Conference. Fargo, ND, US, 525-530.

Johnson, H.W., Robinson, H.F. and Comstock, R.E. 1955.Estimates of genetic and
environmental variability in soybean. Agron. J., 47: 314-18.

Kaleem, S., Hassan, F.-u., Ahmad, M., Mahmood, I., Wasaya, A., Randhawa, M.A., Khaliq,
P., 2011a. Effect of growing degree days on autumn planted sunflower. African Journal of
Biotechnology 10: 8840–8846.

Kaya, Y., Evci, G., Pekcan, V., Gucer, T., Durak, S. and Yilmaz, M.I. 2008. The path analysis
of yield traits in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.).Latvian Journal of Agronomy, 11: 72.

Kholghi, M., Bernousi, I., Darvishzadeh, R.and Pirzad, A. 2011. Correlation and path-
coefficient analysis of seed yield and yield related trait in Iranian confectionery sunflower
populations. African Journal of Biotechnology, 10(61): 13058-13063.

Kluza wieloch M and Musnicki C 2004. Variability of some morphological and utilitarian
characters of shoots and inflorescences of different cultivar types of sunflower (Helianthus
annuus L.).Rosliny-oleiste 25 (2): 423-428.

Komaraiah K, Sokka Reddy S, Ranganatha A R G and Ganesh M 2004 Genetic divergence in

the lines of sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Journal of Oilseeds Research 21: 154-155.

Khoufi S, Khamassi K, da Silva JAT, Aoun N, Rezgui S, Jeddi FB. 2013. Assessment of
diversity of phonologically and morphologically related traits among adapted populations of
sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Helia 36 (58): 29-40.

Kline, P., 2014. An easy guide to factor analysis. London: Routledge.

Lal, G.S., V.S. Bhaderiya and A.K. Singh, 1997. Genetic association and path analysis in elite
lines of sunflower. Crop Res. Hisar, 13: 631.

Laxmanaiah V H 1980. Genetic variability and association of morphological characters, seed

yield and oil content in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) Mysore Journal of Agricultural
Sciences 14: 259-261.

Low, A., and G. Pistillo. 1986. The self fertility status of some sunflower cultivars in
Australia. Field Crops Res. 14:233–245. doi: 10.1016/0378-4290(86)90061-4

Mahalakshmi P, Vidhyavathi R and Muralidharan V 2006. Genetic divergence in sunflower.

Agricultural Science Digest 26 (2): 138-140.

Mahalanobis P C 1936. On the generalized distance in statistics. Proceedings of National

Institute of Sciences, India 2: 49-55.

52
Makane, V.G., Shinde, C.A., Mohrir, M.N. and Shaikh Md ShoyabAkhil Md Ab. Majid.
2011. Genetic variability studies in new versions of sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.).
BIOINFOLET, 8(1): 44-51.

Manjula K, Nadaf H L and Giriraj (2001). Genetic diversity in non-oilseed sunflower

(Helianthus annuus L.) genotypes. Helia 24: 17-24

Martin, (2012). Maize and sunflower biomass estimation in southwest France using high
spatial and temporal resolution remote sensing data. Remote Sensing of Environment 124:
844-857.

Maruthi Sankar, G., Narasimha Murthy, D., Vanaja, M., Raghuram Reddy, P. 1999. Multiple
selection index for selecting sunflower genotypes using principal component analysis. Indian
Journal of Dryland Agricultural Research and Development 14 (2): 93-103.

Mohammadi, SA. And Prasanna, BM., 2003. Analysis of genetic diversity in crop plants-
salient statistical tools and considerations. Crop Science 43: 1235-1248.

Muhammad T, Idress G and Tahir A 1992. Genetic variability and correlation studies in
sunflower. Sarhad Journal of Agriculture 8 (6): 659-663.

Mustafa, HSB. Jehanzeb F., Ejaz H., Tahira B., and Tariq M. 2015. Cluster and principal
component analyses of maize accessions under normal and water stress conditions. J. of
Agric. Sciences, 60(1): 33-48.

Nazir, A., Farooq, J., Mahmood, A., Shahid, M., & Riaz, M. 2013. Estimation of genetic
diversity for CLCuV, earliness and fiber quality traits using various statistical procedures
in different crosses of Gossypiumhirsutum L. , 43(4).

Nehru, S.D. and Manjunath, A. 2003. Correlation and path analysis in sunflower (Helianthus
annuus L.). Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 16(1): 39-43.

Shivasubramanian, S. and Menon, N. 1973. Heterosis and inbreeding depression Genet. 17:
381-387.

Panse VG and Sukhatme PV 1985. Statistical methods for agricultural workers. Indian
Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi. pp. 359.

Patil YB, Madalageri BB, Biradar BD, Hoshmani RM (1996). Variability studies in okra
(Abelmoschusesculentus L. Moench.) Karnataka J Agr Sci 9: 289–293.

Pecetti, L., &Damania, A.B.1996. Geographic variation in tetraploid wheat (Triticumturgidum

spp. Turgidumconvar. Durum) landraces from two provinces in Ethiopia. Genetic Resources
and Crop Evolution, 43(5), 395-407.

Putt, E., 1997. Early History of Sunflower: American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wis.
(USA). 1–19.

53
Rajendraprasad S, Shankar A N, Raut N D, Khare D and Srivastava R 2003. Morphological,
chemical and electrophoretic descriptors of sunflower varieties / hybrids (Helianthus annuus
L.). National Seed Project, New Delhi pp 1-33.

Rajeswari U 2004. Heterosis and combing ability studies in the genotypes derived through
interspecific hybridization in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis submitted
to Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, Hyderabad.

Ramanjinappa V, Arunkumar KH, Hugar A, Shashibhaskar MS (2011). Genetic variability in

okra (Abelmoschusesculentus L. Moench.). Plant Arch 11: 435–437.

Rao CR 1952. Advance Statistical Methods in Biometrical Research. John Wiley and Sons
Inc. New York Edn.1.

Rao N V, Mohan Y C and Reddy S S. 2003. Variability and character association in the elite
lines of sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Research on Crops 4 (1): 104- 109.

Ravi E. 2001. Genetic variability studies in newly developed inbred lines of sunflower
(Helianthus annuus L.). M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University,
Hyderabad.

Reddy, A.V. and Reddy, R.N. 2006. Evaluation and characterization of Sunflower,
(Helianthus annuus L.) germplasm accessions. J. Oilseeds Res. 23:161-64.

Roy D and Ali M T 2003. Basis for constituting base population in sunflower (Helianthus
annuus L.). Agricultural Science Digest 23 (2): 92-94.

Sankarapandian R, Muppidathi N, Rajarathinam S and Chidambaram S 1996. Genetic

divergence in sunflower. Madras Agricultural Journal 83: 637-639.

SAS Institute. (2014). SAS/STAT guide for personal computers, version 9.3 edition. AS
Institute Inc., Cary, NC.

Shamshad M, Dhillon S K, Tyagi V and Akhatar J (2014). Assessment of genetic diversity in

sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) germplasm. Internat J Agric Food Sci Tech 4: 267-72.

Salah.B.M.A.and Abdella.W.H. 2009. Genetic yield stability in some sunflower

(Helianthusannuus L.) hybrids under different environmental conditions of Sudan. J. of Plant
Breeding and Crop Sci. 1(1): pp. 016-021

Seiler, G. J. 1997. Anatomy and morphology of sunflower. In: Sunflower Technology and
Production. Agron. 35. pp. 67-111. Ed. Schneiter, A.A.

Seneviratne K G S, Ganesh M, Ranganatha A R G 2003. Effect of recurrent selection on

variability and genetic parameters of yield attributes in sunflower. Annals of the Srilanka.
Department of Agriculture 2003; 5: 227-232.

54
Sheriff N M, Appadurai R and Rangaswamy S R S 1987. Correlation and path analysis in
sunflower. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 57: 125-127.

Shinde Y M, Wattamwar M J and Patil G D 1983. Variability and correlation studies in

sunflower. Journal of Maharashtra Agricultural Universities 8 (2): 122-123.

Siddiqi MH, Ali S, Bakht J, Khan A, Khan SA, Khan N. 2012. Evaluation of sunflower lines
and their crossing combinations for morphological characters yield and oil contents. Pakistan
J Bot 44: 687-69.

Singh R B and Gupta M P 1968. Multivariate analysis of divergence in upland cotton. Indian
Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding 28: 262-268.

Singh S B and Labana K. S. 1990. Correlation and path analysis in sunflower. Crop
improvement 17 (1): 49-53.

Singh RK, Chaudhary BD (1985). Biometrical Methods in Quantitative Analysis. New Delhi,
India: Kalayani Publishers.

Sinha A K, Ghosh I, Pandey A and Srivastava S 1998. Path coefficient analysis of seed yield
in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) hybrids. Journal of Oilseeds Research 15 (1): 175-176.

Skoric, D., 1992. Achievements and future directions of sunflower breeding. Field Crops
Research 30(3-4): 231-371

Snow, A. A., P. Moran-Palma, L.H. Rieseberg, A. Wszelaki and G. J. Seiler. 1998. Fecundity,
phenology, and seed dormancy of F1 wild-crop hybrids in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L).
Amer. J. Bot. 85(6): 794-801.

Sridhar S 1999. Studies on genetic divergence and character association in sunflower

(Helianthus annuus L.). M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis Acharya N. G. Ranga Agricultural University,
Hyderabad.

Sridhar, V., Dangi, K.S., Reddy, A.V.V. and Kumar, S.S. 2005. Character association and
path analysis in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Crop Research, 30(1): 63-67.

Subrmanyam S V R, Kumar S and Ranganatha A R G 2003. Genetic divergence for seed

parameters in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Helia 26 (38): 73-80.

Sujatha H L, Chikkadevaiah and Nandini 2002. Genetic variability study in sunflower

inbreds.Helia 25 (37): 93-99.

Suma C, Mogali and Virupakshappa K 1994. Characterization and evaluation of sunflower

(Helianthusannuus L.) germplasm. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis University of Agricultural Sciences,
Bangalore.

Sutar, D.S., Ghodke, M.K. and Pole, S.P. 2010. Genetic variability, heritability and genetic
advance in sunflower, Helianthus annuus L. Journal of Oilseeds Research, 27(1): 55-56.

55
Syed W H, Syed S M and ShahidaHasnain 2004. Variability for Agronomic traits in two
random mating sunflower populations. Means, variance components and Heritabilities. Helia
24 (41): 99-112.

Tahir, Sadaqat, and Sajat-Bashir 2002. Correlation and path coefficient analysis of
morphological traits in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) populations. International Journal of
Agriculture and Biology, 3: 341-343.

Teklewold A, Jayaramaiah H and Jagadish B N 2000. Studies on correlation and path analysis
of physiomorphological characters of sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) as related to breeding
method. Helia 23 (2): 93-104.

Thirumala Rao V, Ranganatha A R G, Ganesh M, Srinivasulu K and Rao P V 2005.

Assessment of genetic divergence in gene pool inbreeds and elite lines of sunflower
(Helianthus annuus L.) Journal of Oilseeds Research 22 (1): 168- 171.

Tyagi V, Dhillon S K, Bajaj R K and Kaur J (2013) Divergence and association studies in
sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Helia 36: 77-94.

USDA, foreign agricultural service office of global analysis, international production

assessment, October 2017.

Vannozzi G P, Megale P and Salera E 1990. (Helianthus spp.) Genus wild species
interspecific hybrids: Morphological and technological characters, Helia 13 (13): 127-133.

Venujayakanth, B., Dudhat A S., Swaminathan B., and Anurag ML. 2017. Assessing Crop
Genetic Diversity using Principal Component Analysis: A Review. Trends in Biosciences 10
(2): 523-528.

Vidhyavathi R, Mahalakshmi P, Manivannan N and Muralidharan V 2005. Correlation and

path analysis in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Agricultural Science Digest 25 (1): 6-10.

Wright, S. 1921. Correlation and causation. Journal of Agricultural Research, 20: 557-585.

Zeinalzadeh-Tabrizi, H., and M. Ghaffari. 2005. Evaluation of genetic diversity of sunflower

genotypes (Helianthus annuus L.) based on agronomic traits using principle component
analysis. In: Proceedings of the First International Iranian Congress on Biological Sciences,
14-15 December 2005, Islamic Azad University, Karaj Branch, Iran.

56
 7. APPENDIX

Table 1: Mean square from analysis of variance for different sources of variation and the corresponding CV for quantitative traits of
sunflower genotypes tested at Adadi

Mean squares
Treatment Error
TRAITS Un RE to CV (%)
Replications adjusted Adjusted Block(Rep) RCB intra block RCBD
(1) (24 ) (24 ) (Adj.) (8 ) (24) (16 ) %
Days to flowering(days) 44.2 31.2* 30.1* 2.61 4.3 5.1 83.72 2.51
Days to Maturity(days) 106.6 9.155* 7.88* 5.4 3.7 2.85 112.14 1.2
Head diameter(cm) 0.2 3.04 ns 2.79 ns 0.685 1.63 2.1 77.6 6.97
Hundred seed weight(g) 0.057 1.82* 1.73* 0.866 0.66 0.56 105.85 11.6
Leaf number(no.) 112.5 14.23* 5.8 ns 19.1 10.25 5.84 142.6 8.99
Number of Seed/plant (no.) 456.02 55679* 46479.5* 20920 20963 20985 99.9 12.21
Oil content (%) 4.033 33.56 * 29.7 * 17.6 19.02 19.74 96.4 12.1
Plant height(cm) 684.5 395.56 * 439.3* 301.3 324.5 336.2 96.55 9.4
Petiole length (cm) 3.58 2.18* 2.59* 2.31 1.2 0.59 157.8 5.3
Ray floret number (no.) 106.6 15.96* 14.61* 14.95 9.45 6.71 119.11 5.2
Stem diameter (cm) 0.00065 0.044* 0.0423* 0.0442 0.025 0.02 130.65 4.9
Seed filling percentage 16.91 4.12 ns 3.2 ns 3.6 2.79 2.4 104.73 1.62
Seed yield/plant (g) 22.45 145.7* 124.2* 11.32 19.21 23.15 82.96 7.43

Oil yield(kg)/hectare 0.018 378.1** 588.11** 28.12 25.61 24.35 100.66 6.8

Seed yield/ha(kg) 18432 228619** 728618.8** 8443.8 11715 13351 87.75 5.66

57
Table 2: Mean square from analysis of variance for different sources of variation and the corresponding CV for quantitative traits of
sunflower genotypes tested at Holetta

Mean squares

Treatment Error
intra RE to
Replications Un adjusted Adjusted Block(Rep) RCB block RCBD
TRAITS ( 1) (24 ) (24 ) (Adj.) (8 ) (24) (16 ) % CV (%)
Days to flowering(days) 3.38 82.25* 79.6* 41.3 37.38 35.43 100.74 5.97
Days to Maturity(days) 8 9.32* 9.67* 3.1 3.4 3.53 95.74 1.3
Head diameter (cm) 10.49 5.54* 4.93* 4.51 2.84 2 119.6 6.96
Hundred seed weight(g) 0.63 0.97* 0.76* 0.25 0.202 0.18 10.64 8.6
Leaf number(no.) 18 3.63* 3.33* 3.65 1.75 0.8 173.57 4.02
Number of Seed/plant(no) 61530 44477* 48301.5* 30992 24411 21120 104.5 17.3
Oil content (%) 8.41 30.61** 25.6** 3.18 2.36 1.95 107.3 4.33
Plant height(cm) 32 700.45* 622.1* 179.9 196.33 204.6 95.98 8.26
Petiole length (cm) 3.03 2.21* 2.03* 1.756 0.84 0.4 173 4.8
Ray floret number (no.) 48 21.6ns 20.97 ns 4.45 9.23 11.62 79.42 7.46
Stem diameter (cm) 0.0072 0.042 ns 0.043 ns 0.088 0.0612 0.047 112.3 8.2
Seed filling percentage (%) 33800 9.035* 7.43* 0.87 1.21 1.36 87.98 1.23
Seed yield/plant (g) 61.2 114.5* 110.8* 33.74 36.55 37.95 96.3 15.1
Seed yield/ha(kg) 239345 1160324.9** 910876.94** 221467 95078 31884 232 9.8
Oil yield 346.48 1284.95** 972.97** 121.1 60.66 30.48 159.36 9.21

58
Table 3: Mean Performance of 25 Sunflower Genotypes for Fifteen Quantitative traits studied at Holletta and Adadi

Genotype RFN LN YPP NSPP OC HD SD PL

Adadi-3-SPS-2/4 48-e-f 23-e-f 52.5-b-d 909-g-h 31.75-j-k 20-e-f 2.53-e-f 13.01f-i
Adadi-3-SPS-5/4 55-a 23-e-f 64.4-a 1326-a 30.25-l-k 23-a 2.83-b-a 14.3 c-e
Adadi-3-SPS-9/4 53-b-a 27-b-a 55-b-c 1053-f-d 33.05-j-h 20.2-e-c 2.5-e-f 13.65 d-h
NK-FERTI-SPS-1/4 50-b-a 26-b-c 53.3-b-d 1010-g-h 40.8-a 20.75-e-c 2.6-e-c 14.65 cd
NK-FERTI-SPS-4/4 44-h-f 27-b-a 52.9-b-d 999-g-h 35.6-f-d 19.2-e-f 2.63-e-c 13 f-i
NK-KONDI-SPS-2/4 46-e-f 23-e-f 39.2-f 854-j-k 32.9-j-h 20-e-f 2.52-e-f 12.6 i
NK-KONDI-SPS-7/4 51-b-c 24-e-f 51.3-b-d 1025-g-h 31.95-j-k 20.7-e-c 2.76-b-c 13.85c-g
NK-NEOMA-SPS-2/4 50-b-c 25-e-c 63.3-a 1205-b-a 35.95-f-d 22.1-b-c 2.73-e-c 13.64 d-h
Brazil Long seed PL2-SPS-3/4 45-e-f 28-a 46-e-d 800-k 27-j-m 19.3-e-f 2.56-e-c 13.52 d-h
Brazil Long seed PL4-SPS-4/4 44-h-f 25-e-c 54.6-b-c 788-k 27.05-m 19.75-e-f 2.59-e-c 13.86 c-g
NK-FERTI-SPS-8/1 49-e-f 24-e-f 57-b-a 1147-b-d 34.7-f-h 21.0-e-c 2.84-b-a 16.6 a
Brazil Long Seed PL6-SPS-7/4 44-h-f 23-e-f 54.7-b-c 771-k 28.5-l-m 20.4-e-c 2.62-e-c 12.91 g-i
Brazil Long Seed PL9-SPS-4/4 50-b-c 25-e-c 64.3-a 1018-g-h 30.02-l-k 22.7-b-a 2.56-e-c 14.21 c-e
H-45-SPS-5/4 50-b-c 25-e-c 51-b-d 887-j-h 31.9-j-k 19.95-e-f 2.54-e-f 13.96 c-g
NK-FERTI-SPS-7/4 50-b-c 23-e-f 47.8-e-d 1149-b-d 37.3-b-d 19.85-e-f 2.54-e-f 14.14 c-e
NK-KONDI-SPS-7/4 48-e-f 22-g-f 54.43-b-c 1093-b-d 32.5-j-k 22.1-b-c 2.89-a 13.3 f-i
NK-NEOMA-SPS-7/4 50-b-c 24-e-f 53.85-b-c 1138-b-d 38.1-b-d 20.55-e-c 2.74-b-c 15.23 b
VSFH-180-SPS-5/4 41-h 24-e-f 54.4-b-c 975-g-h 35.9-f-d 21.85-b-c 2.6-e-c 13.63 d-h
VSFH-1044-SPS-1/4 52-b-c 24-e-f 55.2-b-c 1067-b-d 38.03-b-d 20.85-e-c 2.48-f 13.23 f-i
VSFH-1044-SPS-2/4 51-b-c 25-e-c 53.2-b-d 1155-b-c 35.4-f-g 20.94-e-c 2.49-f 12.56 h-i
VSFH-1044-SPS-3/4 49-e-f 22-g-f 51.1-b-d 1148-b-d 38.2-b-c 18.6-f 2.52-e-f 14.01 c-e
VSFH-1044-SPS-9/4 48-e-f 23-e-f 43.2-e-f 861-j-k 30.3-l-k 19.15-e-f 2.44-f 13 f-i
VSFH-1044-SPS-10/4 47-e-f 25-e-c 54.7-b-c 1117-b-d 38.8-b-a 21.15-e-c 2.46-f 14.9 bc
VSFH-2006-SPS-2/4 49-e-f 28-a 43.3-e-f 911-g-h 35.2-f-h 20.4-e-c 2.54-e-f 13.6 d-h
Oissa (Check) 47-e-f 26-b-c 47.8-e-d 1010-g-h 38.0-b-d 20.1-e-c 2.62-e-c 13.8 c-g
Mean 48 24 52.57 1022 34 20.5 2.63 14

CV (%) 8.1 5.7 10.2 10.46 5.2 5.74 6.46 7.08

59
Table 3. Cont.

Genotype PH DF DM SFP HSW YPH OYPH

Adadi-3-SPS-2/4 170.5-i 92-k-i 150-g-h 96.75-b-c 6.55-c-d 2123-e-f 62.54ef
Adadi-3-SPS-5/4 175-h-g 93-h-i 152-e-f 96.05-e-f 5.57-f-h 2257-e-f 64.2 ef
Adadi-3-SPS-9/4 191.5-d-e 92-k-i 152-e-f 96-e-f 6.1-f-g 2228-b-c 85.13b
NK-FERTI-SPS-1/4 204.75-b-a 96-f-g 153-e-c 93.4-i-j 6.3-c-d 1894-h-j 71.7c-e
NK-FERTI-SPS-4/4 203.75-b-c 98-b-c 154-b-c 96.9-b-c 6.1-f-g 2128-e-f 69.9d-f
NK-KONDI-SPS-2/4 172.75-i 92-k-i 148-i 94.9-e-f 5.2-j-i 1571-i-j 45.1j-m
NK-KONDI-SPS-7/4 200.5-b-c 100-b-c 152-e-f 95.5-e-f 5.97-f-g 1912-h-f 62.9e-f
NK-NEOMA-SPS-2/4 185.75-f-g 96-f-g 152-e-f 96.5-e-c 6.2-f-d 2200-e-f 73.94cd
Brazil Long seed PL2-SPS-3/4 172.0-i 91.0-k-l 151-e-h 94.5-e-f 6.6-c-b 1514-i-j 39.2m
Brazil Long seed PL4-SPS-4/4 175.3-h-g 88-n-m 151-e-h 97.9-a 7.83-a 2171-e-f 54.3ij
NK-FERTI-SPS-8/1 211.0-a 102-a 155-ba 97.3-b-a 5.8-f-g 2314-edc 74.52cd
Brazil Long Seed PL6-SPS-7/4 149.0-j 88-n-m 151-e-h 96.3-e-c 8.1-a 1614-hij 43.5lm
Brazil Long Seed PL9-SPS-4/4 189.0-f-e 91-k-l 151-e-h 97.6-a 7.4-a 2542-a 84.54b
H-45-SPS-5/4 185.75.0-f-g 97-f-c 152-e-f 95.5-e-f 6.65-b 1914-h-f 57.65ij
NK-FERTI-SPS-7/4 189.5-d-e 93-h-i 154-b-c 92.3-j 4.83-j 1542-i-j 53.32ij
NK-KONDI-SPS-7/4 200.3-b-c 102-a 156-a 96.3-e-c 5.83-f-g 2517-b-a 88.4b
NK-NEOMA-SPS-7/4 192.0-d-c 103-a 153-e-c 94.7-e-f 5.5-f-g 1722-h-j 61.62f-i
VSFH-180-SPS-5/4 177.0-f-g 92-k-i 151-e-h 97.2-b-a 6.2-f-d 2428-d-c 81.1cb
VSFH-1044-SPS-1/4 170.3-i 95-h-g 152-e-f 96.5-e-c 6.1-f-g 2486-b-c 87.5b
VSFH-1044-SPS-2/4 177.0-f-g 94-h-g 150-g-h 93.3-i-j 5.42-j-h 1800-h-j 59.6hi
VSFH-1044-SPS-3/4 174.3-h-i 89-n-m 151-e-h 96.2-e-f 5.52-f-g 2522-a 106.24a
VSFH-1044-SPS-9/4 177.0-f-g 87-n 149-h-i 93.3-i-j 5.87-f-g 1628-h-j 48.95j-m
VSFH-1044-SPS-10/4 197.0-b-c 98-b-c 153-e-c 94.5-e-f 5.6-f-g 1992-h-f 77.97 c-e
VSFH-2006-SPS-2/4 173.0-i 101-b-a 155-b-a 94.1-e-f 5.32-j-h 1571-i-j 52.1i-l
Oissa (Check) 187.0-f-g 96-f-g 153-e-c 94-e-f 5.45-f-g 1571-i-j 56.33ij
Mean 184.03 95 152 95.5 6.1 2000 59.7

CV 4.6 2.34 2.59 1.54 12.01 8.95 10.3

60
Table 4: Result of Homogeneity tested using Hartley (1950)

no Trait LMS SMS LMS/SMS

1 Days to flowering(days) 79.6 30.1 2.65
2 Days to Maturity(days) 9.67 7.88 1.23
3 Head diameter(cm) 4.93 2.79 1.77
4 Hundred seed weight(g) 1.73 0.76 2.28
5 Leaf number(no.) 5.8 3.33 1.74
6 Number of Seed/plant (no.) 48301.5 46479.6 1.04
7 Oil content (%) 29.7 25.6 1.2
8 Plant height(cm) 622.1 439.3 1.42
9 Petiole length (cm) 2.59 2.03 1.28
10 Ray floret number (no.) 20.97 14.95 1.41
11 Stem diameter (cm) 0.043 0.0423 1.02
12 Seed filling percentage 7.43 3.2 2.32
13 Seed yield/plant (g) 124.2 110.8 1.121
14 Oil yield(kg)/hectare 972.97 588.11 1.65
15 Seed Yield/ha(kg) 910877 728619 1.25

Where, LMS=Largest mean Square and SMS=Smallest mean square

61
Appendix Table 5: Mean monthly rain fall and temperature during cropping season at
Holletta

Location Weather
parameters Month
Holletta July Aug Sep Oct Nov Means
Dec
Rain fall (mm) 172.8 311.4 244 29 0 0 126.2
Temperature Max 22.1 21.7 22.6 24.2 24 23.1 23.1
(℃)
Min 8.8 10.4 8.3 7.8 2.8 6.5 6.5
Source: HARC (2017)

62
 Dendrogram
Average Linkage, Euclidean Distance

38.41

58.94
Similarity

79.47

1 00.00
1 5 7 10 4 23 1 4 2 8 3 1 1 1 3 1 6 1 9 21 1 8 6 24 22 9 1 2 1 5 25 1 7 20
Observations

Figure 1: Dendrogram of cluster analysis results

63