Cucurbit Genetics Cooperative Report 7:21-22 (article
10) 1984
Effect of Inbreeding on Horticultural Performance of Cucumber
Families Developed from a Variable Population
D.B. Rubino and T.C. Wehner
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
Species of the Cucurbitaceae have been reported to exhibit little
inbreeding depression (1). However, Ghaderi and Lower (3)
reported that in 5 of 6 crosses of cucumber, heterozygosis had
significant positive linear effects for all yield characters
measured. They also suggested that since hybrid vigor and
inbreeding depressing are both aspects of the same phenomenon,
inbreeding depression might also be expected to occur in cucumber
(2). Therefore, self pollination should be expected to result in
deterioration of cucumber lines as it does in maize (Zea
mays L.), where a reduction in vigor accompanying inbreeding
was reported as early as 1908 (4). The objective of this
experiment was to determine if inbreeding depression occurs in
cucumber families derived from an open-pollinated population.
Methods. Twenty-four cucumber families were developed by
self-pollination of randomly-selected plants from the open-
pollinated pickling cucumber population NCMBP, for 6 generations.
Seeds from all generations were planted on July 13, 1983 using a
split-plot in a randomized complete block design with 2 replications. Whole plots were the 24 families and subplots were the 6
generations. Check plots of 'Calypso' and NCMBP (S0 plants) were included for reference points. A stand of 15 plants
per 1.5m plot was maintained with standard cultural practices.
All plots were harvested when 'Calypso' check plots reached 10%
oversize fruit (>51mm in diameter).
At harvest, the total and marketable fruit number per plot were
counted. Fruit shape and color, and the size of the seed cavity
were rated visually on a scale of 1 (poor) to 9 (excellent).
Earliness was measured as the number of oversize fruit per plot
on the day of harvest. The regressions of yield, earliness, and
quality on F, the coefficient of inbreeding, were
used to measure the effect of the level of homozygosity on
performance.
Results. The differences among generation means were
small for all traits measured (Table 1). Inbreeding apparently
had no deleterious effect on these traits. The regressions for
all traits resulted in slopes that were not significantly
different from 0 (Table 2). This indicated that no significant
inbreeding depression occurred, since a reduction in vigor or
quality with inbreeding would result in negative slopes.
Heterozygosis was reported to have a positive effect on yield in
5 of 6 cucumber crosses studied by Ghaderi and Lower (3).
However, most of the genetic variance for yield in a population
studied by Smith et al. (5) was found to be additive. Results
from this study support previous observations (1) that inbreeding
depression is not important in controlling the fruit yield,
earliness, or quality of inbreds developed at random from the
pickling cucumber population NCMBP.
Table 1. Yield, earliness, and fruit quality for 6 generations of
inbreeding from the NCMBP population (generation 0).z |
Generations of inbreeding |
Yield (Fruit no./plot) |
|
Fruit quality scorex |
Total |
Marketable |
Earlinessy |
Shape |
Seedcell |
Color |
0 |
26.0 |
23.0 |
23.0 |
5.1 |
4.3 |
5.5 |
1 |
24.3 |
21.2 |
15.9 |
5.2 |
4.9 |
6.0 |
2 |
24.1 |
20.9 |
17.4 |
5.5 |
5.5 |
6.2 |
3 |
29.7 |
26.4 |
22.6 |
5.3 |
4.9 |
5.9 |
4 |
27.1 |
23.8 |
18.9 |
5.4 |
4.9 |
6.1 |
5 |
26.1 |
22.4 |
19.1 |
5.3 |
5.3 |
6.1 |
6 |
25.9 |
21.4 |
17.5 |
5.4 |
5.2 |
6.1 |
LSD (5%) |
3.1 |
2.8 |
2.7 |
0.4 |
0.4 |
0.4 |
CV (%) |
26.6 |
27.6 |
32.8 |
17.1 |
17.0 |
14.6 |
zData are means over 24 families and 2 replications. |
yEarliness is the number of oversize fruit per plot at harvest. |
xQuality scored 1 to 9 (1=poor, 5=average, 9=excellent). |
Table 2. Relationship of the level of inbreeding (F) to
performance of 24 families for yield, earliness, and fruit
quality. |
Trait |
Regression of trait on F (b)z |
Yield |
| Total (Fruit no.) |
5.57 |
| Marketable (Fruit no.) |
3.90 |
Earlinessy |
6.35 |
Qualityx |
| Shape |
0.36 |
| Seedcell |
0.32 |
| Color |
0.08 |
zNone of the regression slopes were significant at the 5% level. |
yEarliness is the number of oversize fruit per plot at harvest. |
xQuality scored 1 to 9 (I=poor, 5=average, 9=excellent). |
Literature Cited
- Allard, R.W. 1960. Principles of Plant Breeding. John Wiley
and Sons, Inc., New York.
- Ghaderi, A. and R.L. Lower. 1978. Heterosis and phenotypic
stability of F1 hybrids in cucumber under controlled
environment. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 103:275-278.
- Ghaderi, A. and R.L. Lower. 1979. Heterosis and inbreeding
depression for yield in populations derived from six crosses of
cucumber. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 104:564-567.
- Shull, G.H. 1908. The composition of a field of maize. Amer.
Breeders' Assoc. Rep. 4:296-301.
- Smith, O.S., R.L. Lower and R.H. Moll. 1978. Estimates of
heritability and variance components in pickling cucumber. J.
Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 103:222-225.