Evaluation of Ethyl Methanesulphonate (EMS) Mutagenesis on Yield and Yield-Related Traits of Cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) Cultivars
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.67601/njbls.v3i2a.48Keywords:
broad-sense heritability, Cucumis sativus, Composite Mutation Decision Value, EMS mutagenesis, mutation efficiency, yield stabilityAbstract
Chemical mutagenesis using ethyl methanesulphonate (EMS) is a widely adopted approach for inducing heritable genetic variation in crop plants. This study evaluated the effects of EMS mutagenesis on yield and yield-related traits in three cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) cultivars Darina, Market More, and Kenzo (F₁) under two exposure durations (16 and 24 hours) in addition to an untreated control. Traits assessed included days to flowering (DTF), fruit size (FS), number of cucumbers per plant (NCPP), length of fruit (LOF), weight of fruit (WOF), and circumference of fruit (COF). Cultivar performance was quantified using a Composite Decision Index (CDI), while mutation effectiveness and efficiency were integrated into a Composite Mutation Decision Value (CMDV). Darina recorded the highest CDI (0.833), earliest flowering (25.61 days), and superior yield components. The 24-hour EMS treatment maintained a Yield Stability Index (YSI) of 0.95 and increased NCPP by 20.3% relative to the control. Darina × 24-hour EMS achieved the highest CMDV (0.91) and was classified as highly recommended for breeding advancement. Broad-sense heritability under this combination ranged from 0.69 to 0.78, with fruit weight showing the highest heritability (H² = 0.78). The study demonstrates that 24-hour EMS exposure on Darina represents an optimal mutation window for inducing beneficial, heritable variation in cucumber, and provides a decision-based framework for advancing superior cultivar × mutagen combinations in subsequent breeding generations.
References
Abdulkareem FY and Olawale MA (2025). Ethyl methane sulfonate induced yield amplification in cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp). Afr. J. Agric. Allied Sci. 5(3): 207–220. https://doi.org/10.70118/ajaas.0202505030.18
Bnejdi F, Saadoun M, Allagui MB and El Gazzah M (2010). Epistasis and heritability of resistance to Phytophthora nicotianae in pepper. Euphytica 172: 111–116.
Brock RD (1965). Induced mutations affecting quantitative characters. Radiat. Bot. 5 (Suppl.): 451–464.
El-Degwy IS (2013). Mutation induced genetic variability in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Int. J. Agric. Biol. 15: 1219–1226.
Gilchrist EJ and Haughn GW (2010). Reverse genetics techniques: Engineering loss and gain of gene function in plants. Brief. Funct. Genomics 9(2): 103–110. https://doi.org/10.1093/bfgp/elp059
Khan MN, Jahan B, Seraj S and Islam R (2017). Effect of EMS on germination, survival and mutation frequency in M₁ generation of lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.). Arch. Agric. Environ. Sci. 2(4): 292–297.
Kharkwal MC (2012). A brief history of plant mutagenesis. In: Shu QY, Forster BP and Nakagawa H (eds). Plant Mutation Breeding and Biotechnology. CABI, Wallingford, pp. 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781780640853.0021
Kharkwal MC and Shu QY (2009). The role of induced mutations in world food security. In: Shu QY (ed). Induced Plant Mutations in the Genomics Era. FAO, Rome, pp. 33–38.
Pandey G, Yadav SK and Kumar R (2020). Cucumis sativus L.: A review on its ethnopharmacology, phytochemistry, and nutritional benefits. J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem. 9(1): 1428–1436.
van Harten AM (1998). Mutation Breeding: Theory and Practical Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
