Morphological DUS Characterization and Genetic Diversity Analysis of Maize (Zea mays L.) Inbred Lines under Waterlogging Conditions
Le résumé fourni par la source
A comprehensive study was undertaken to characterize 80 maize (Zea mays L.) inbred lines for 28 morphological DUS traits underwaterlogging (WL) conditions. The descriptors included 20 visually assessed and 8 measurable characteristics. Analysis of variance(ANOVA) for measurable traits revealed highly significant differences among genotypes for all characters studied, indicating thepresence of substantial genetic variability. Visually assessed DUS traits showed wide variation among lines for kernel shape, glumecolour, and grain colour, except for grain type, since all entries belonged to the field corn group. Cluster analysis based on combinedvisual and measurable traits grouped the genotypes into two major clusters, indicating clear phenotypic diversity. When clusteringwas performed using measurable traits alone, SE 610, SE 601, SE 616, I 190 and I 202 formed a separate cluster, highlighting theirdistinct morphological expression. The combined assessment of qualitative and quantitative DUS descriptors proved efficient indifferentiating maize inbred lines. The study provides valuable baseline information for varietal distinctiveness testing, genetic puritymaintenance, and selection of potential parents in breeding programs aimed at improving waterlogging tolerance in maize.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Morphological DUS Characterization and Genetic Diversity Analysis of Maize (Zea mays L.) Inbred Lines under Waterlogging Conditions
- Date Crossref
- 11/05/2026
- Éditeur
- Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Directorate of Knowledge Management in Agriculture
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.