Inheritance of stem rot resistance in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L)

Inheritance of stem rot resistance in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L) | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Inheritance of stem rot resistance in groundnut ( Arachis hypogaea L) Suvarna Chintha, Vasanthi R.P, Viswanath K, Kiran kumar Reddy C, and 2 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9219017/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 7 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract In the present investigation five crosses out of twenty crosses made in line x tester mating design were utilized for inheritance studies of stem rot resistance. The five crosses were derived from crossing of five susceptible genotypes (TCGS 1694, TCGS 2245, Dheeraj, Kadiri-6 and Narayani) with one stem rot resistant genotype, TCGS 1862 (male parent). F₁s were moderately resistant to stem rot. The segregation pattern in the F₂ generation was good fit to a phenotypic ratio of 1 Susceptible : 2 Moderately resistant : 1 Resistant indicating that resistance to stem rot is governed by incomplete dominance. These F₂ findings were further confirmed by genetic analysis in the F 3 generation. Groundnut stem rot resistance incomplete dominance and F2 generation Introduction Groundnut ( Arachis hypogaea L.), an annual, self-pollinated legume crop with a chromosome number of 2n = 4x = 40, belongs to the family Fabaceae . It is native to South America and is now cultivated widely across tropical and subtropical regions of the world, between latitudes 40° N and 40° S. Globally, groundnut is grown over an area of 37.3 million hectares, producing 55.9 million tonnes with an average productivity of 1,656 kg ha⁻¹ (FAOSTAT, 2024). India is one of the major producers of groundnut, with the crop occupying approximately 5.4 million hectares, yielding 11.30 million tones with an average productivity of 2097 kg ha⁻¹. In Andhra Pradesh, groundnut is cultivated on 0.346 million hectares, with a production of 0.360 million tonnes and productivity of 1041 kg ha⁻¹ (INDIASTAT, 2024–2025) which is significantly lower in comparision with productivity at national level. The production of groundnut is threatened by various biotic and abiotic constraints. Among biotic stresses, soil borne pathogens viz. , Aspergillus niger, Sclerotium rolfsii and Rhizoctonia bataticola cause severe plant mortality resulting in poor plant stand and reduced yield of 25–40 per cent (Ghewande et al ., 2002). Of these, stem rot caused by S. rolfsii is particularly destructive, significantly affecting both plant health and yield. The disease, also known as white mold or southern blight, was first reported by Mc Clintock (1917) in Virginia. Sclerotium rolfsii is a necrotrophic, soil-borne fungal pathogen with a wide host range, infecting over 500 plant species, including groundnut. Management of soil-borne diseases like stem rot is challenging due to the limited efficacy of fungicides, which must penetrate the plant canopy to reach the soil profile. Persistence of the pathogen in soil and its wide host range often limit the effectiveness of chemical and cultural control of stem and pod rot. Therefore, breeding for genetic resistance is a sustainable and cost-effective strategy for managing stem rot disease in groundnut. A comprehensive understanding of the genetic basis of resistance to S. rolfsii is essential for the development of effective breeding programs. Knowledge of inheritance of resistance helps in selection of appropriate breeding strategies, including crossing and selection schemes, and enable the transfer of resistance genes into high-yielding susceptible cultivars. Materials and Methods During the Rabi season of 2021–2022, experimental material was developed using a Line × Tester (L × T) mating design. Four stem rot resistant genotypes TCGS 1862, TCGS 2251, ICGR 161930 and NRCG CS 19 were used as testers, while five high-yielding susceptible varieties TCGS 1694, TCGS 2245, Dheeraj, Kadiri-6, and Narayani as lines. A total of 20 crosses were generated through Line x Tester mating design. Out of these during Rabi season (2022–2023), inheritance was studied in five crosses, namely TCGS 1694 × TCGS 1862, TCGS 2245 × TCGS 1862, Dheeraj × TCGS 1862, Kadiri-6 × TCGS 1862 and Narayani × TCGS 1862. All five crosses had a common male parent, TCGS 1862, which resistant to stem rot. Screening of parents and F 1 s was done under sick plot condition during kharif , 2022 at RARS, Tirupati. The parents (P 1 and P 2 ), F₁, F₂, and F₃ generations of the selected crosses were screened for stem rot resistance under sick plot conditions during the 2022–2024 period at RARS, Tirupati. Screening for stem rot resistance was done at 70 DAS (days after sowing) and at the time of harvesting. Artificial inoculation was carried out by incorporating Sclerotium rolfsii inoculum, multiplied on sorghum grains into the soil between rows followed by mulching with paddy straw to maintain favorable conditions for disease development. To further confirm the mode of inheritance, F₃ progenies were screened under artificially inoculated sick plot conditions during the Kharif season of 2023. In each cross, ten plants each from resistant/moderately resistant and susceptible categories were selected from F₂ generation and raised in plant-to-progeny rows in F₃ generation. In F 2 and F 3 generations individual plants were scored for stem rot disease as per the scale of Bera et al. (2014). The Chi-square (χ²) test was employed to test the goodness of fit to Mendelian ratios. Results and discussion The total number of 106 F 2 plants of the cross TCGS 1694 × TCGS 1862, 100 F 2 plants of TCGS 2245 × TCGS 1862,106 F 2 plants of the cross Dheeraj × TCGS 1862, 114 F 2 plants of the cross Kadiri-6 × TCGS 1862 and 112 F 2 plants of Narayani × TCGS 1862 were screened for stem rot incidence by creating artificial epiphytic condition using same procedure employed for screening the parents and F 1 s. The stem rot disease reaction was scored as per the rating scale given by Ashok et al ., (2004) (Table 1a). The stem rot incidence in parents and F 1 s is furnished in Table 2. Table.1(a) Stem rot disease incidence scale of Ashok et al . (2004) Scale* Disease reaction 0% Immune 1–10% Highly resistant 10 to 20% Resistant 20 to 50% Moderately resistant > 50% Highly susceptible *Percent of infected plants per row Table.1(b) Stem rot disease incidence scale of Bera et al . (2014) Disease reaction Disease intensity Rating scale R: Resistant 25% to 50% drying of plants 3 S: Susceptible > 50% drying of plants 4 Table.2 Reaction of parents and F 1 s to stem rot disease in groundnut S.No Parents / F 1 s Stem rot incidence (%) 1 TCGS 1694 23.75 2 TCGS 2245 30.25 3 Dheeraj 32.86 4 Kadiri-6 27.54 5 Narayani 28.01 6 TCGS 1862 3.72 7 TCGS 1694× TCGS 1862 15.81 8 TCGS 2245× TCGS 1862 15.86 9 Dheeraj× TCGS 1862 7.98 10 Kadiri-6× TCGS 1862 10.06 11 Narayani × TCGS 1862 13.24 The F₁ from all five crosses exhibited moderate resistance to stem rot, indicating partial dominance of resistance. Individual plants in the F₂ population were screened for stem rot resistance as per Bera et al .,(2014) (Table 1b) and categorized into resistant, moderately resistant and susceptible classes. The segregation data in the F₂ generation fitted a phenotypic ratio of 1 Susceptible : 2 Moderately Resistant : 1 Resistant, suggesting that resistance is incompletely dominant over susceptibility (Table 3). The resistant genotype is assigned the genotype symbol of ‘RR’, while susceptible genotype as ‘rr’. The F 1 is represented as ‘Rr’ i.e. , moderately resistant. The genotypes assigned for parents and F₁s presented in Table 4. Table.3 Segregation for stem rot resistance in groundnut ( Arachis hypogaea L) in five F 2 populations Crosses F 1 behaviour F 2 behaviour Ratio Probability χ2 Value Susceptible Moderately Resistant Resistant TCGS 1694×TCGS 1862 Moderately Resistant 21 59 26 1:2:1 0.50 − 0.25 1.83 TCGS 2245 ×TCGS 1862 Moderately Resistant 25 49 26 1:2:1 0.99 − 0.95 0.06 Dheeraj× TCGS 1862 Moderately Resistant 19 61 26 1:2:1 0.50 − 0.25 3.34 Kadiri-6× TCGS 1862 Moderately Resistant 25 61 28 1:2:1 0.99 − 0.95 2.527 Narayani× TCGS 1862 Moderately Resistant 22 66 24 1:2:1 0.25 − 0.10 3.643 Table.4 The genotypes assigned for parents and F 1 s Parents/ F 1 s Genotype Phenotype TCGS 1694, TCGS 2245, Dheeraj, Kadiri-6 and Narayani rr Susceptible TCGS 1862 RR Resistant TCGS 2245 × TCGS 1862/TCGS 2251/ ICGR 161930/ NRCG CS19 F 1 Rr Moderately resistant To confirm the mode of inheritance, ten plants each from resistant/moderately resistant and susceptible categories in the F₂ generation were advanced and grown in plant-to-progeny rows in F₃ generation. In F₃ generation, progenies derived from resistant and susceptible F₂ plants bred true, while progenies derived from moderately resistant F₂ plants showed segregation fitting either a 2 Moderately Resistant : 1 Resistant or 1 Resistant : 2 Moderately Resistant : 1 Susceptible ratio (Table 5). These observations support the conclusion that the moderately resistant F₂ plants were heterozygous confirming the incomplete dominance of resistance over susceptibility. Table:5 Segregation for stem rot resistance in groundnut ( Arachis hypogaea L) in F 3 populations Cross F 2 phenotype F 3 behaviour Ratio TCGS 1694 × TCGS 1862 Susceptible 5 S/HS All bred true Resistant/moderately Resistant 1 HR 4(2MR: 1HR) TCGS 2245 × TCGS 1862 Susceptible 5 S/HS All bred true Resistant/moderately Resistant - 5(2MR: 1HR) Dheeraj × TCGS 1862 Susceptible 5 S/HS All bred true Resistant/moderately Resistant - 5(2MR: 1HR) Kadiri-6 × TCGS 1862 Susceptible 4 S/HS All bred true Resistant/moderately Resistant 1 HR 4(2MR: 1HR) Narayani × TCGS 1862 Susceptible 5 S/HS All bred true Resistant/moderately Resistant - 5(2MR: 1R) Comparative studies on the inheritance of stem rot resistance in groundnut are limited. Amarnath et al. (2022) reported a 3:1 (Resistant: Susceptible) ratio in crosses, Kadiri-6 × NRCG CS 19 and Narayani × J 11 indicating dominant gene action. In contrast, a 15:1 ratio was observed in the crosses ICGV 07262 × TCGS 1862 and ICGV 07262 × TCGS 2149, suggesting the involvement of duplicate dominant genes. Kusmadevi et al. (2015) recorded a 13:3 segregation ratio in four crosses, GPBD-4 × AGL-2389, TMV-2 × AGL-168, Dh-86 × AGL-289 and Dh-86 × AGL-63 indicating that stem rot resistance is governed by inhibitory gene interaction. Stem rot resistance is a complex trait and governed by many genes and expression of resistance is altered by environment. In recent years, many studies attempted to discern the genetic basis of resistance in biparental mating populations. The first QTL linked to stem rot resistance was identified using F 2 population of the cross, TC 37A (Susceptible) x NRCG CS 85(resistant) with SSR markers by Dodia et al. (2016). Using the RIL population of the same cross, Dodia et al. (2019) identified seven major QTLs with phenotypic variance explained ranging from 5.5 to 8.5 per cent. Luo et al. (2020) using RIL population from NC 3033(resistant) and Tifrunner (susceptible) cross reported 33 additive QTLs through SNP and SSR markers and Cui et al.( 2020) identified another two QTLs linked to stem rot resistance through QTL seq method. These varying reports on the mode of inheritance may be attributed to differences in the genetic background of the parental materials and the complex nature of the trait. However, in the present study in F₂ populations of 150–200 plants per cross, a clear 1:2:1 segregation pattern was observed indicating the role of a single gene with incomplete dominance in inheritance of stem rot resistance. There may be involvement of many genes contributing to resistance which could not have been detected at the phenotypic level under field conditions. The case of incomplete dominance could be due to overlapping effect of many minor genes which could not be discerned with naked eye. The ratios that are obtained when characters are governed by additive effects of many genes follow similar pattern. In the present study itself, biometrical analysis revealed additive nature of stem rot resistance i.e. , proportion of contribution of lines and testers was greater than line x tester interaction (Suvarna et al . 2024), indicating the scope for improvement of stem rot resistance through phenotypic selection. Declarations Author Contribution Conceptualization of research (CS,RPV); Designing of theexperiments (RPV,MRS); Contribution of experimentalmaterials (KV,CKKR,YA); Execution of field/lab experiments anddata collection (CS,RPV,KV); Analysis of data and interpretation(CS,RPV,KV,YA); Preparation of the manuscript (CS,RPV,KV). Acknowledgement The authors are thankful to ICRISAT, Patancheru and RARS, Tirupati for providing the experimental material and Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University for providing financial assistance and support in the conduct of experiment at Dry Land Farm, S. V Agricultural college, Tirupati. The research project doesn’t receive funding from any other agencies. References Ashok, J., Fakrudin, B., Paramesh, H., Kenchanagoudar, P.V and Kullaiswamy, B.Y. 2004. Identification of groundnut ( Arachis hypogaea L.) germplasm resistant to stem and pod rot caused by Sclerotium rolfsii Saac. Indian Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding . 64(3): 247:248. Amarnath, K., Reddisekhar, M., John, K., Sudhakar, P and Viswanth, K. 2023. Genetic analysis for pod yield and stem rot resistance in peanut ( Arachis hypogaea L.). Ph.D. Thesis. Acharya N.G. Agricultural University, Lam, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. Bera S.K., Kasundra S.V., Kamdar J.H., Ajay B.C., Lal. C., Thirumalasmy. P.P., Dash and Maurya AK. 2014. Variable response of interspecific breeding lines of groundnut to Sclerotium rolfsii infection under field and laboratory conditions. Electron Journal of Plant Breeding . 5:22–29. Cui, R., Clevenger, J., Chu, Y.,Brenneman, T., Isleib, G.T., Holbrook, C.C and Akins, P.O. 2020. Quantitative trait loci sequencing-derived molecular markers for selection of stem rot resistance in peanut. Crop Science . 60: 2008–2018. Dodia, S.M.,Joshi, B., Gangurde, S. S., Thirumalaisamy, P.P.,Mishra, G.P., Narandrakumar, D., Soni, P., Rathnakumar, A. L., Dobaria, J. R., Sangh, C., Chitikineni, A., Chanda, S.V., Pandey, M.K., Varshney, R..K and Thankappan, R. 2019. Genotyping-by-sequencing based genetic mapping reveals large number of epistatic interactions for stem rot resistance in groundnut. Theoretical and Applied Genetics . 132 (4): 1001–1016. Dodia, S.M., Rathnakumar, A.L., Mishra, G.P., Radhakrishnan, T., Joshi, B., Thirumalaisamy, P.P., Kumar, N., Chandra, S., Dobaria, J.R., Kumar, A and Sangh, C. M. 2016. Phenotyping and Molecular Marker Analysis for stem-rot Disease Resistance Using F 2 Mapping Population in Groundnut. International Journal of Tropical Agriculture. 34(4): 1135–1139. FAOSTAT, 2024. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. World Agricultural Production, Rome, Italy. http://faostat.fao.org/. Ghewande, M.P., Desai, S., and Basu, M.S., 2002, Diagnosis and management of major diseases of groundnut. NRCG Bull. 1:8–9. INDIASTAT,2024–2025. Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. Indiastat. 2024–2025.www.indiastatagri.com. Kusuma devi.S.P. 2015. Genetic analysis of yield and its component traits and resistance to sclerotium rolfssi in groundnut ( Arachis hypogaea L). Ph.D thesis. MARS, UAS, Dharwad. Luo, Z., Cui, R., Chavarro, C., Tseng, Y.-C., Zhou, H., Peng, Z., Chu, Y., Yang, X., Lopez, Y., Tillman, B., et al. 2020. Mapping quantitative trait loci (QTLs) and estimating the epistasis controlling stem rot resistance in cultivated peanut ( Arachis hypogaea L). Theoretical Applied Genetics . 133, 1201–1212. Mc Clintock J A (1917), “Peanut Wilt Caused By Sclerotium Rolfsii ”, Journal of Agricultural Research . 8: 441–448. Suvarna.C, Vasanthi.R.P., Kiran Kumar Reddy.C., Viswanth, K and Amaravathi.Y. 2024. Genetics of stem rot resistance for yield and yield related traits in groundnut ( Arachis hypogaea L.) . Ph.D. Thesis. Acharya N.G. Agricultural University, Lam, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 12 Apr, 2026 Reviews received at journal 08 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 08 Apr, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 08 Apr, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 30 Mar, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 30 Mar, 2026 First submitted to journal 25 Mar, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9219017","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":621697538,"identity":"716d4972-5ec5-4121-b577-f75a75ac513c","order_by":0,"name":"Suvarna Chintha","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"S.V. Agricultural College","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Suvarna","middleName":"","lastName":"Chintha","suffix":""},{"id":621697539,"identity":"df0e299b-3197-4eaf-b7ec-466c115be95c","order_by":1,"name":"Vasanthi R.P","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Agricultural Research Station, Perumallapalle","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Vasanthi","middleName":"","lastName":"R.P","suffix":""},{"id":621697540,"identity":"324c94c6-ae0f-4cda-8539-95751cb2f0fb","order_by":2,"name":"Viswanath K","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Regional Agricultural Research station","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Viswanath","middleName":"","lastName":"K","suffix":""},{"id":621697541,"identity":"07c9d8ea-b1df-4b59-b9a6-967b25939e33","order_by":3,"name":"Kiran kumar Reddy C","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Agricultural Research Station","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Kiran","middleName":"kumar Reddy","lastName":"C","suffix":""},{"id":621697542,"identity":"c46c6ff6-ef32-427b-85cc-3f26461b0577","order_by":4,"name":"Amaravathi Y","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Regional Agricultural Research station","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Amaravathi","middleName":"","lastName":"Y","suffix":""},{"id":621697543,"identity":"c4663964-ed4b-492a-954a-61bfc93ff86e","order_by":5,"name":"Reddi Sekhar M","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"S.V. Agricultural College","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Reddi","middleName":"Sekhar","lastName":"M","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-03-25 06:38:18","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9219017/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9219017/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":107480343,"identity":"57d702f8-04d4-497e-98c1-41f3a6cc75ed","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-22 02:08:56","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":519271,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9219017/v1/142733d1-65c5-494e-9071-9a0905a82122.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eInheritance of stem rot resistance in groundnut (\u003cem\u003eArachis hypogaea\u003c/em\u003e L)\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eGroundnut (\u003cem\u003eArachis hypogaea\u003c/em\u003e L.), an annual, self-pollinated legume crop with a chromosome number of 2n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4x\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;40, belongs to the family \u003cem\u003eFabaceae\u003c/em\u003e. It is native to South America and is now cultivated widely across tropical and subtropical regions of the world, between latitudes 40\u0026deg; N and 40\u0026deg; S. Globally, groundnut is grown over an area of 37.3\u0026nbsp;million hectares, producing 55.9\u0026nbsp;million tonnes with an average productivity of 1,656 kg ha⁻\u0026sup1; (FAOSTAT, 2024). India is one of the major producers of groundnut, with the crop occupying approximately 5.4\u0026nbsp;million hectares, yielding 11.30\u0026nbsp;million tones with an average productivity of 2097 kg ha⁻\u0026sup1;. In Andhra Pradesh, groundnut is cultivated on 0.346\u0026nbsp;million hectares, with a production of 0.360\u0026nbsp;million tonnes and productivity of 1041 kg ha⁻\u0026sup1; (INDIASTAT, 2024\u0026ndash;2025) which is significantly lower in comparision with productivity at national level. The production of groundnut is threatened by various biotic and abiotic constraints. Among biotic stresses, soil borne pathogens \u003cem\u003eviz.\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eAspergillus niger, Sclerotium rolfsii\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eRhizoctonia bataticola\u003c/em\u003e cause severe plant mortality resulting in poor plant stand and reduced yield of 25\u0026ndash;40 per cent (Ghewande \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2002). Of these, stem rot caused by \u003cem\u003eS. rolfsii\u003c/em\u003e is particularly destructive, significantly affecting both plant health and yield. The disease, also known as white mold or southern blight, was first reported by Mc Clintock (1917) in Virginia. \u003cem\u003eSclerotium rolfsii\u003c/em\u003e is a necrotrophic, soil-borne fungal pathogen with a wide host range, infecting over 500 plant species, including groundnut. Management of soil-borne diseases like stem rot is challenging due to the limited efficacy of fungicides, which must penetrate the plant canopy to reach the soil profile. Persistence of the pathogen in soil and its wide host range often limit the effectiveness of chemical and cultural control of stem and pod rot. Therefore, breeding for genetic resistance is a sustainable and cost-effective strategy for managing stem rot disease in groundnut.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA comprehensive understanding of the genetic basis of resistance to \u003cem\u003eS. rolfsii\u003c/em\u003e is essential for the development of effective breeding programs. Knowledge of inheritance of resistance helps in selection of appropriate breeding strategies, including crossing and selection schemes, and enable the transfer of resistance genes into high-yielding susceptible cultivars.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Materials and Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eDuring the \u003cem\u003eRabi\u003c/em\u003e season of 2021\u0026ndash;2022, experimental material was developed using a Line \u0026times; Tester (L \u0026times; T) mating design. Four stem rot resistant genotypes TCGS 1862, TCGS 2251, ICGR 161930 and NRCG CS 19 were used as testers, while five high-yielding susceptible varieties TCGS 1694, TCGS 2245, Dheeraj, Kadiri-6, and Narayani as lines. A total of 20 crosses were generated through Line x Tester mating design. Out of these during \u003cem\u003eRabi\u003c/em\u003e season (2022\u0026ndash;2023), inheritance was studied in five crosses, namely TCGS 1694 \u0026times; TCGS 1862, TCGS 2245 \u0026times; TCGS 1862, Dheeraj \u0026times; TCGS 1862, Kadiri-6 \u0026times; TCGS 1862 and Narayani \u0026times; TCGS 1862. All five crosses had a common male parent, TCGS 1862, which resistant to stem rot. Screening of parents and F\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003es was done under sick plot condition during \u003cem\u003ekharif\u003c/em\u003e, 2022 at RARS, Tirupati. The parents (P\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e and P\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e), F₁, F₂, and F₃ generations of the selected crosses were screened for stem rot resistance under sick plot conditions during the 2022\u0026ndash;2024 period at RARS, Tirupati. Screening for stem rot resistance was done at 70 DAS (days after sowing) and at the time of harvesting. Artificial inoculation was carried out by incorporating \u003cem\u003eSclerotium rolfsii\u003c/em\u003e inoculum, multiplied on sorghum grains into the soil between rows followed by mulching with paddy straw to maintain favorable conditions for disease development. To further confirm the mode of inheritance, F₃ progenies were screened under artificially inoculated sick plot conditions during the \u003cem\u003eKharif\u003c/em\u003e season of 2023. In each cross, ten plants each from resistant/moderately resistant and susceptible categories were selected from F₂ generation and raised in plant-to-progeny rows in F₃ generation. In F\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e and F\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e generations individual plants were scored for stem rot disease as per the scale of Bera \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e (2014). The Chi-square (χ\u0026sup2;) test was employed to test the goodness of fit to Mendelian ratios.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results and discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe total number of 106 F\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e plants of the cross TCGS 1694 \u0026times; TCGS 1862, 100 F\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e plants of TCGS 2245 \u0026times; TCGS 1862,106 F\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e plants of the cross Dheeraj \u0026times; TCGS 1862, 114 F\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e plants of the cross Kadiri-6 \u0026times; TCGS 1862 and 112 F\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e plants of Narayani \u0026times; TCGS 1862 were screened for stem rot incidence by creating artificial epiphytic condition using same procedure employed for screening the parents and F\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003es. The stem rot disease reaction was scored as per the rating scale given by Ashok \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., (2004) (Table\u0026nbsp;1a). The stem rot incidence in parents and F\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003es is furnished in Table\u0026nbsp;2.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable.1(a) Stem rot disease incidence scale of Ashok\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eet al\u003c/strong\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e(2004)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable float=\"No\" id=\"Taba\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScale*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDisease reaction\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImmune\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;10%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHighly resistant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10 to 20%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResistant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20 to 50%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eModerately resistant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;50%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHighly susceptible\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e*Percent of infected plants per row\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable.1(b) Stem rot disease incidence scale of Bera\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eet al\u003c/strong\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e(2014)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003ctable float=\"No\" id=\"Tabb\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDisease reaction\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDisease intensity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRating scale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eR: Resistant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;10% drying of plant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMR: Moderately Resistant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10 to 25% drying of plant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMS: Moderately Susceptible\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;25% to 50% drying of plants\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eS: Susceptible\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;50% drying of plants\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable.2 Reaction of parents and F\u003c/strong\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003cstrong\u003es to stem rot disease in groundnut\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable float=\"No\" id=\"Tabc\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eS.No\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eParents / F\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003es\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStem rot incidence (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTCGS 1694\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23.75\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTCGS 2245\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDheeraj\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32.86\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKadiri-6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27.54\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNarayani\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTCGS 1862\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.72\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTCGS 1694\u0026times; TCGS 1862\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.81\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTCGS 2245\u0026times; TCGS 1862\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.86\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDheeraj\u0026times; TCGS 1862\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.98\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKadiri-6\u0026times; TCGS 1862\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNarayani \u0026times; TCGS 1862\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe F₁ from all five crosses exhibited moderate resistance to stem rot, indicating partial dominance of resistance. Individual plants in the F₂ population were screened for stem rot resistance as per Bera \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e.,(2014) (Table\u0026nbsp;1b) and categorized into resistant, moderately resistant and susceptible classes. The segregation data in the F₂ generation fitted a phenotypic ratio of 1 Susceptible : 2 Moderately Resistant : 1 Resistant, suggesting that resistance is incompletely dominant over susceptibility (Table\u0026nbsp;3). The resistant genotype is assigned the genotype symbol of \u0026lsquo;RR\u0026rsquo;, while susceptible genotype as \u0026lsquo;rr\u0026rsquo;. The F\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e is represented as \u0026lsquo;Rr\u0026rsquo; \u003cem\u003ei.e.\u003c/em\u003e, moderately resistant. The genotypes assigned for parents and F₁s presented in Table\u0026nbsp;4.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable.3 Segregation for stem rot resistance in groundnut (\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eArachis hypogaea\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eL) in five F\u003c/strong\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e \u003cstrong\u003epopulations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable float=\"No\" id=\"Tabd\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCrosses\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e behaviour\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e behaviour\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRatio\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProbability\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026chi;2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eValue\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSusceptible\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eModerately Resistant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResistant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTCGS 1694\u0026times;TCGS 1862\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eModerately Resistant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e59\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1:2:1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"−\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.50\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.83\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTCGS 2245 \u0026times;TCGS 1862\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eModerately Resistant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1:2:1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"−\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.99\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.95\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDheeraj\u0026times; TCGS 1862\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eModerately Resistant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e61\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1:2:1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"−\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.50\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eKadiri-6\u0026times; TCGS 1862\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eModerately Resistant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e61\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1:2:1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"−\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.99\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.95\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.527\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNarayani\u0026times; TCGS 1862\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eModerately Resistant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e66\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1:2:1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"−\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.25\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.643\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable.4 The genotypes assigned for parents and F\u003c/strong\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003cstrong\u003es\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable float=\"No\" id=\"Tabe\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eParents/ F\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003es\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGenotype\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePhenotype\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTCGS 1694, TCGS 2245, Dheeraj, Kadiri-6 and Narayani\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003err\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSusceptible\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTCGS 1862\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResistant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTCGS 2245 \u0026times; TCGS 1862/TCGS 2251/ ICGR 161930/ NRCG CS19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRr\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eModerately resistant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo confirm the mode of inheritance, ten plants each from resistant/moderately resistant and susceptible categories in the F₂ generation were advanced and grown in plant-to-progeny rows in F₃ generation. In F₃ generation, progenies derived from resistant and susceptible F₂ plants bred true, while progenies derived from moderately resistant F₂ plants showed segregation fitting either a 2 Moderately Resistant : 1 Resistant or 1 Resistant : 2 Moderately Resistant : 1 Susceptible ratio (Table\u0026nbsp;5). These observations support the conclusion that the moderately resistant F₂ plants were heterozygous confirming the incomplete dominance of resistance over susceptibility.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable:5 Segregation for stem rot resistance in groundnut (\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eArachis hypogaea\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eL) in F\u003c/strong\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e \u003cstrong\u003epopulations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable float=\"No\" id=\"Tabf\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCross\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e phenotype\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e behaviour\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRatio\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTCGS 1694 \u0026times; TCGS 1862\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSusceptible\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5 S/HS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAll bred true\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResistant/moderately\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResistant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 HR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4(2MR: 1HR)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTCGS 2245 \u0026times; TCGS 1862\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSusceptible\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5 S/HS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAll bred true\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResistant/moderately\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResistant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5(2MR: 1HR)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDheeraj \u0026times; TCGS 1862\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSusceptible\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5 S/HS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAll bred true\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResistant/moderately\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResistant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5(2MR: 1HR)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eKadiri-6 \u0026times; TCGS 1862\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSusceptible\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4 S/HS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAll bred true\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResistant/moderately\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResistant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 HR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4(2MR: 1HR)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNarayani \u0026times; TCGS 1862\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSusceptible\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5 S/HS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAll bred true\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResistant/moderately\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResistant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5(2MR: 1R)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eComparative studies on the inheritance of stem rot resistance in groundnut are limited. Amarnath \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e (2022) reported a 3:1 (Resistant: Susceptible) ratio in crosses, Kadiri-6 \u0026times; NRCG CS 19 and Narayani \u0026times; J 11 indicating dominant gene action. In contrast, a 15:1 ratio was observed in the crosses ICGV 07262 \u0026times; TCGS 1862 and ICGV 07262 \u0026times; TCGS 2149, suggesting the involvement of duplicate dominant genes. Kusmadevi \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e (2015) recorded a 13:3 segregation ratio in four crosses, GPBD-4 \u0026times; AGL-2389, TMV-2 \u0026times; AGL-168, Dh-86 \u0026times; AGL-289 and Dh-86 \u0026times; AGL-63 indicating that stem rot resistance is governed by inhibitory gene interaction.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStem rot resistance is a complex trait and governed by many genes and expression of resistance is altered by environment. In recent years, many studies attempted to discern the genetic basis of resistance in biparental mating populations. The first QTL linked to stem rot resistance was identified using F\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e population of the cross, TC 37A (Susceptible) x NRCG CS 85(resistant) with SSR markers by Dodia \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e(2016). Using the RIL population of the same cross, Dodia \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e (2019) identified seven major QTLs with phenotypic variance explained ranging from 5.5 to 8.5 per cent. Luo \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e (2020) using RIL population from NC 3033(resistant) and Tifrunner (susceptible) cross reported 33 additive QTLs through SNP and SSR markers and Cui \u003cem\u003eet al.(\u003c/em\u003e2020) identified another two QTLs linked to stem rot resistance through QTL seq method.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese varying reports on the mode of inheritance may be attributed to differences in the genetic background of the parental materials and the complex nature of the trait. However, in the present study in F₂ populations of 150\u0026ndash;200 plants per cross, a clear 1:2:1 segregation pattern was observed indicating the role of a single gene with incomplete dominance in inheritance of stem rot resistance. There may be involvement of many genes contributing to resistance which could not have been detected at the phenotypic level under field conditions. The case of incomplete dominance could be due to overlapping effect of many minor genes which could not be discerned with naked eye. The ratios that are obtained when characters are governed by additive effects of many genes follow similar pattern. In the present study itself, biometrical analysis revealed additive nature of stem rot resistance \u003cem\u003ei.e.\u003c/em\u003e, proportion of contribution of lines and testers was greater than line x tester interaction (Suvarna \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e. 2024), indicating the scope for improvement of stem rot resistance through phenotypic selection.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eConceptualization of research (CS,RPV); Designing of theexperiments (RPV,MRS); Contribution of experimentalmaterials (KV,CKKR,YA); Execution of field/lab experiments anddata collection (CS,RPV,KV); Analysis of data and interpretation(CS,RPV,KV,YA); Preparation of the manuscript (CS,RPV,KV).\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe authors are thankful to ICRISAT, Patancheru and RARS, Tirupati for providing the experimental material and Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University for providing financial assistance and support in the conduct of experiment at Dry Land Farm, S. V Agricultural college, Tirupati. The research project doesn’t receive funding from any other agencies.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAshok, J., Fakrudin, B., Paramesh, H., Kenchanagoudar, P.V and Kullaiswamy, B.Y. 2004. Identification of groundnut (\u003cem\u003eArachis hypogaea\u003c/em\u003e L.) germplasm resistant to stem and pod rot caused by \u003cem\u003eSclerotium rolfsii\u003c/em\u003e Saac. \u003cem\u003eIndian Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding\u003c/em\u003e. 64(3): 247:248.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAmarnath, K., Reddisekhar, M., John, K., Sudhakar, P and Viswanth, K. 2023. Genetic analysis for pod yield and stem rot resistance in peanut (\u003cem\u003eArachis hypogaea\u003c/em\u003e L.).\u003cem\u003ePh.D. Thesis.\u003c/em\u003e Acharya N.G. Agricultural University, Lam, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBera S.K., Kasundra S.V., Kamdar J.H., Ajay B.C., Lal. C., Thirumalasmy. P.P., Dash and Maurya AK. 2014. Variable response of interspecific breeding lines of groundnut to \u003cem\u003eSclerotium rolfsii\u003c/em\u003e infection under field and laboratory conditions. \u003cem\u003eElectron Journal of Plant Breeding\u003c/em\u003e. 5:22\u0026ndash;29.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCui, R., Clevenger, J., Chu, Y.,Brenneman, T., Isleib, G.T., Holbrook, C.C and Akins, P.O. 2020. Quantitative trait loci sequencing-derived molecular markers for selection of stem rot resistance in peanut. \u003cem\u003eCrop Science\u003c/em\u003e. 60: 2008\u0026ndash;2018.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDodia, S.M.,Joshi, B., Gangurde, S. S., Thirumalaisamy, P.P.,Mishra, G.P., Narandrakumar, D., Soni, P., Rathnakumar, A. L., Dobaria, J. R., Sangh, C., Chitikineni, A., Chanda, S.V., Pandey, M.K., Varshney, R..K and Thankappan, R. 2019. Genotyping-by-sequencing based genetic mapping reveals large number of epistatic interactions for stem rot resistance in groundnut. \u003cem\u003eTheoretical and Applied Genetics\u003c/em\u003e. 132 (4): 1001\u0026ndash;1016.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDodia, S.M., Rathnakumar, A.L., Mishra, G.P., Radhakrishnan, T., Joshi, B., Thirumalaisamy, P.P., Kumar, N., Chandra, S., Dobaria, J.R., Kumar, A and Sangh, C. M. 2016. Phenotyping and Molecular Marker Analysis for stem-rot Disease Resistance Using F\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e Mapping Population in Groundnut. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Tropical Agriculture.\u003c/em\u003e 34(4): 1135\u0026ndash;1139.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFAOSTAT, 2024. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. World Agricultural Production, Rome, Italy. http://faostat.fao.org/.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGhewande, M.P., Desai, S., and Basu, M.S., 2002, Diagnosis and management of major diseases of groundnut. NRCG Bull. 1:8\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eINDIASTAT,2024\u0026ndash;2025. Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. \u003cem\u003eIndiastat.\u003c/em\u003e2024\u0026ndash;2025.www.indiastatagri.com.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKusuma devi.S.P. 2015. Genetic analysis of yield and its component traits and resistance to \u003cem\u003esclerotium rolfssi\u003c/em\u003e in groundnut (\u003cem\u003eArachis hypogaea\u003c/em\u003e L). Ph.D thesis. MARS, UAS, Dharwad.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLuo, Z., Cui, R., Chavarro, C., Tseng, Y.-C., Zhou, H., Peng, Z., Chu, Y., Yang, X., Lopez, Y., Tillman, B., et al. 2020. Mapping quantitative trait loci (QTLs) and estimating the epistasis controlling stem rot resistance in cultivated peanut (\u003cem\u003eArachis hypogaea\u003c/em\u003e L). \u003cem\u003eTheoretical Applied Genetics\u003c/em\u003e. 133, 1201\u0026ndash;1212.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMc Clintock J A (1917), \u0026ldquo;Peanut Wilt Caused By \u003cem\u003eSclerotium Rolfsii\u003c/em\u003e \u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eJournal of Agricultural Research\u003c/em\u003e. 8: 441\u0026ndash;448.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSuvarna.C, Vasanthi.R.P., Kiran Kumar Reddy.C., Viswanth, K and Amaravathi.Y. 2024. Genetics of stem rot resistance for yield and yield related traits in groundnut (\u003cem\u003eArachis hypogaea\u003c/em\u003e L.) .\u003cem\u003ePh.D. Thesis.\u003c/em\u003e Acharya N.G. Agricultural University, Lam, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"indian-journal-of-genetics-and-plant-breeding","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"Learn more about [Indian Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding](https://link.springer.com/journal/44489)","snPcode":"44489","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/44489/3","title":"Indian Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Groundnut, stem rot resistance, incomplete dominance and F2 generation","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9219017/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9219017/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eIn the present investigation five crosses out of twenty crosses made in line x tester mating design were utilized for inheritance studies of stem rot resistance. The five crosses were derived from crossing of five susceptible genotypes (TCGS 1694, TCGS 2245, Dheeraj, Kadiri-6 and Narayani) with one stem rot resistant genotype, TCGS 1862 (male parent). F₁s were moderately resistant to stem rot. The segregation pattern in the F₂ generation was good fit to a phenotypic ratio of 1 Susceptible : 2 Moderately resistant : 1 Resistant indicating that resistance to stem rot is governed by incomplete dominance. These F₂ findings were further confirmed by genetic analysis in the F\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e generation.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Inheritance of stem rot resistance in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L)","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-04-15 17:02:34","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9219017/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-04-12T13:23:12+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-04-08T11:23:42+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"272131436831943306401237622264224543917","date":"2026-04-08T10:17:29+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-04-08T09:43:23+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-03-30T15:31:48+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-03-30T15:31:27+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Indian Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding","date":"2026-03-25T06:21:56+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"indian-journal-of-genetics-and-plant-breeding","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"Learn more about [Indian Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding](https://link.springer.com/journal/44489)","snPcode":"44489","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/44489/3","title":"Indian Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"adbe6e23-838e-46a7-ba87-e5852777e5e1","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 15th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-26T07:08:12+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-04-15 17:02:34","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9219017","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9219017","identity":"rs-9219017","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}