Arunachalam, V.

Kesava Rao, P. S.

Mehta, S. L.

English

Publications of the IAS Fellows

_____ STER GATIVE BER: 09296.23 
Arunachalam, V., Kesava Rao and ehta, S.L. 
1993 : 289-291. 
Record no. D-87 
-«)1 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--An 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
. -
04 -
.. - 
.-~ -
-
.... = 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-N -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-('..J -
-
-
-
-
-
-
.;;.= 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-CII= 
-
-
-
-.'T 
-~= 
-
-
-
-
-
-
'-l= 
-
-
-
-
-
-... 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-(,0= 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.... -
-
-
.... :: 
.... = 
-
-
-
-
... = 
N= 
-
-
-
-
-
.... -
-
w= 
-
-
-
-
-
.--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Short Communications 
/ndianJournalof Agricultural Sciences 63 (5) : 289-91, May 1993 
Seed nitrogen and fatty acids reflecting yield variation in groundnut 
(Aracllis hypogaea) 
V ARUNACHALAMl , P S KESA V A RA02 and S L MEHTA 3 
Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012 
Received: 26 November 1991 
Genotypic variation considerably influen-
ces the nutritive quality of groundnut (Arachis 
hypogaea L.), including nitrogen in seed, 
protein content and fatty acids (Ahmed and 
Young 1982, Adsule et al. 1989). Therefore 
such quality traits can also reflect genetic 
variation in pod yield. Rapid and efficient 
screening techniques of biochemical traits, 
particularly fatty acid profiles and N content, 
can permit preliminary selection for produc-
tivity potential. This note reports such an at-
tempt with 9 advanced lines and examines the 
association between pod yield and various 
biochemical traits. 
Six advanced lines with variation in yield 
performance (' 1441 A 1', '1423 VB', 'NFP 
140', 'NFG 7', 'RB 90', 'RB 15'), developed 
in a National Project on groundnut in the past 
decade,.a national control (,Robut 33-1 '), a 
high nitrogen-fixing genotype ('NC Ac 
2821 ') and a non-nodulating derivative from 
the cross 'NC 17' x 'PI 259747' ('Non-nod') 
were selected for the study. In yield, 'Non-
nod' was the lowest and some of the 6 ad-
vanced lines were superior to the national 
control. The 9 lines were grown at New Delhi 
in randomized block design with 2 rerlica-
tions during the nonnal rainy season (July-
November) of 1988 in single-row plots of 10 
Iprincipal Scientist, 2Research Associate, Division of 
Genetics; 3Head, Division of Biochemistry 
289 
m length spaced 75 CIn apart. The plant-to-
plant distance was 10 cnl. The crop was raised 
under normal cultural practices including 
protection against diseases and pests. 
Nitrogen content in roots, seeds and in the 
whole plant was estimated using 2 plants 
sampled near harvest (145 days after sowing) 
by Kjeldahl method, aft.er taking observations 
on harvest index, shelling percentage and oil 
content. Fatty acids (palmitic, stearic, oleic, 
linoleic, arachidic, eicosenoic and behenic 
acids) were estimated using a gas-liquid 
chromatograph (Sen et al. 1976) from seeds 
of the 1987 and 1988 seasons. F-testand t-test 
were used to determine the genotypic varia-
tion for the various traits. The extent of varia-
tion in pod yield or oil content accounted for 
by various traits was estimated by a step-wise 
regression analysis (Draper and Smith 1981). 
Oleic : linoleic acid ratio was used as an 
indicator of oil stability and linoleic: (palmitic 
+ stearic) acid ratio as an indicator of dietary 
value of oil, following Ahmed and Young 
(1982). 
The variation among the lines for N in seed, 
palmitic and stearic acids, was significant in 
addition to oil content and yield/plant, 
whereas that for oleic:, linoleic and arachidic 
acids was not significant. 
Differences between the 9 lines were ap-
parent, particularly for oleic, linoleic and pal-
mitic acids, confirrning similar result of 
ARUNACHALAM ET AL. [Vol 63, No.5 
Ahmed and Young (1982). Up to 97-100% of 
the total contribution of all the fatty acids was 
made by the 7 fatty acids alone. Oleic acid 
contributed the maximum (38.8%), followed 
by linoleic (38.3%). Oleic, linoleic and pal-
mitic acids together accounted for 90% of the 
total contribution (Brown et ale 1975, Ahmed 
and Young 1982). The differences in overall 
" 
mean values (across the 9 genotypes) for oleic 
: linoleic, and linoleic : (palmitic + stearic) 
acid ratios were significant, as also·most of the 
individual genotypic differences for those 
ratios. 
Pod yield was positively and significantly 
correlated with harvest index and N in root 
(Table 1). The other positive and significant 
Table 1 Correlation coefficients between pod yield, oil content and important biochemical traits explaining majority 
of the variations in groundnut 
Character 
Pod yield/plant 
Harvest index 
Oil(%) 
N in root 
N in seed 
N in plant 
Palmitic acid 
Linoleic acid 
Oleic acid 
* P = 0.05 
Table 2 
Variable 
RootN 
SeedN 
linoleic acid 
Oleic acid 
Arachidic acid 
Palmitic acid 
Shelling (%) 
Harvest index 
Stearic acid 
Oil (%) 
Eicosenoic acid 
Behenic acid 
Plant N 
Harvest Oil(%) Nin Nin Nin Palmitic Linoleic Oleic Arachidic 
index root seed plant acid acid acid acid 
0.458* 0.311 0.695* -0.674* -0.346 0.027 0.142 -0.013 0.142 
0.638* 0.229 -0.611* -0.3311 -0.270 0.013 0.085 0.220 
0.232 -0.397 0.205 0.209 -0.123 0.089 --{).064 
-0.313 --{).3l7 0.035 0.003 -0.114 -0.130 
0.260 -0.285 0.245 0.094 -0.399 
0.343 0.073 -Q.173 -0.206 
-0.402 -0.425 0.291 
-0.180 -0.291 
-0.427 
Variation in pod yield or oil content as accounted by regression on various biochemical traits 
Pod yield Oil (%) 
Cumulative Variable Cumulative 
R2 R2 
48.3 HaJrvest Index 40.7 
71.3 PlantN 60.2 
78.8 Palmitic acid 68.2 
81.2 RootN 84.5 
84.4 Olt!ic acid 88.2 
85.9 Eic:osenoic acid 89.9 
86.8 Linoleic acid 90.7 
87.0 Pod yield/plant 90.9 
87.5 Ar.achidic acid 91.4 
89.1 Behenic acid 91.9 
90.1 Stearic acid 92.3 
93.9 SeedN 93.7 
96.0 Shelling (%) 97.4 
290 
May 1993] N AND FA TIY ACID VARIATION IN GROUNDNUT 
correlation was bet\veen harvest index and oil 
(%). The correlations of N in seed with pod 
yield and harvest index were negative and 
significant. The correlations among the fatty 
acids, N in plant, oil (%) and harvest index 
were not significant. However, high differen-
ces were observed in the magnitudes of cor-
relations, some of which were significant 
at 10% levet [For example, r (palmitic, oleic) 
=-0.425; r (oleic, arachidic) = -0.427 when 
compared with others, eg r (linoleic, N in root) 
= 0.003; r (harvest index, linoleic) = 0.013; r 
(pod yield, oleic) = -0.013]. N in root alone 
accounted for 48% and in combination with N 
in seed for 71 % of the total variation in pod 
yield, compared with 96% accounted for 13 
traits (Table 2). Linoleic, oleic and arachidic 
acids accounted for another 13 % of the varia-
tion. Thus the top 5 traits to explain 84% of 
the variation in pod yield were: N in root, N 
in seed, linoleic acid, oleic acid and arachidic 
acid in order. 
An analysis with oil content as dependent 
variable indicated that harvest index, N in 
plant, palmitic acid, N in root and oleic acid 
were the top 5 characters (in order) accounting 
for 88% of the variation in oil content. In this 
case, all the 13 variables could account for 
97% of the variation in pod yield. 
Selection for pod yield, as practised, re-
quires individual plant harvest, drying and 
measurement of pod yield. It involves consid-
erable investment on time and labour. The 
biochemical traits identified in this study will 
permit indirect selection before harvest for 
pod yield, effecting substantial savings on in-
vestment. Earlier studies on N fixation (Prab- •. 
bu et all 1990) underlined the importance of 
291 
total N (%) in plant and nutrient translocation 
to roots and nodules for differentiation in 
yield. Taken along with the biochemical traits 
identified now, a comprehensive criterion of 
economic selection for pod yield has become 
available, which would need large-scale con-
firmatory tests. 
ACKNOWLEDCJEMENTS 
The help rendered by !vir Ranjit Singh and 
!vir B Singh, Division of Biochemistry, in tbe 
analysis of N and fatty acid composition is 
gratefully acknowledged. 
REFERENCES 
Adsule R N, Kadam S Sand Salunkhe D K. 1989. Peanut. 
(in) eRe lIandbook of World Food LegUl1U!s: 
Nutritional Chemistry, Processing Technology and 
Ulilizalion,pp 193-214. SalunkhcDKand Kadam 
S S (Eds). CRC Press Inc., Florida. 
Ahmed E M and Young C T. 1982. Composition, quality 
and flavour of peanuts. (in) Peanut Science and 
Technology, pp 655-88. Pattee H E and Young C T 
(Eds). American Peanut Research and Education 
Society Inc., Texas. 
Brown D F, Cater C II, Mittil I( F and Darroch J G. 1975. 
Effect of variety, growing location and their inter-
action on the fatty acid composition of peanuts. 
Journal of Food Science 40: 1 055-60. 
Draper N R and Smith H. 1981. Applied Regression 
Analysis. pp 307-11. John Wiley & ~ons, New Y oric 
Prabhu K V, Arunachalam V' and Bandyopadbyay A. 
1990. Non-parametric approach to mu1titrait 
selection for yield of groundnut (Arachis 
hypogaea L.). Theoretical and Applied Genetics 
80: 223-7. 
Sen K, Anand I J and Mehta S L. 1976. Fatty acid 
composition as influenced by seasonal variation and 
kernel development in oils and allied products. (in) 
Proceedings of a Symposium on Cwrent Develop-
ment in ai/seeds, Oil and Allied Products, vol 
3, pp 68-71. Oil Technology Association of 
India, Delhi. 


Seed nitrogen and fatty acids reflecting yield variation in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea)

http://repository.ias.ac.in/89399/1/86p.pdf

Seed nitrogen and fatty acids reflecting yield variation in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea)

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Publications of the IAS Fellows