Volume 10, Issue 25 (6-2018)
J Crop Breed 2018, 10(25): 129-137 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Rezaizad A, Zaree siahbidi A, Moradgholi F. (2018). Stability Analysis of Oil Yield in Different Oilseed Rape (Brassica napus L.) Genotypes in Two normal and Delayed Sowing Date in Kermanshah Province. J Crop Breed. 10(25), 129-137. doi:10.29252/jcb.10.25.129
URL: http://jcb.sanru.ac.ir/article-1-670-en.html
URL: http://jcb.sanru.ac.ir/article-1-670-en.html
Horticulture Crops Research Department, Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education center of Kermanshah, AREEO, Kermanshah, Iran
Abstract: (3854 Views)
In order to evaluate oil yield stability in oilseed rape genotypes and genotype´environment interaction, 22 oilseed rape genotypes were evaluated using RCBD design with 4 replications in Agricultural Research Station of Islam Abad-e-Gharb during 3 cropping seasons in normal and delayed sowing date conditions. Combined variance analysis showed that genotype, environment and genotype´environment interaction were statistically significant. Proportion of environment effect followed by genotype´environment interaction was so greater than genotype effect. Based on biplot of two first genotype´environment interaction components, that explains proportion of oilseed rape genotypes in genotype´environment, genotypes Parade, Kristinia, Goliath, Shiralee, Kimberly and Elect were located next to center of biplot so that had the least proportion for the Genotype´Environment effect and were stable from the viewpoint of oil production. AMMI stability values (ASV) of genotypes confirmed the above mentioned results. Hyola401 and Zarfam were located away from the center of biplot so that were unstable genotypes for oil production. Biplot display indicated that environments E1, E3 and E4 had the most scores for genotype´environment interaction whereas E2 had the least proportion in genotype´environment interaction effect. Dissimilarity in ranking of selected genotypes from the viewpoint of oil yield based on other stability parameters suggests that it would be better using of numerous stability parameters to reliable and accurate selection of stable genotypes.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
General
Received: 2016/12/16 | Revised: 2018/07/8 | Accepted: 2017/03/4 | Published: 2018/07/8
Received: 2016/12/16 | Revised: 2018/07/8 | Accepted: 2017/03/4 | Published: 2018/07/8
References
1. Ahmadi, J., B. Vaezi and H. Naraki. 2012. Stability analysis of oilseed rape under dry land and comparison of selection methods of stable genotypes using stability statistics. Crop Production. Agricultural Scientific Journal, 36:13-23 (In Persian).
2. Becker, H.C. and J. Leon. 1988. Stability analysis in plant breeding. Plant breeding, 101:1-23. [DOI:10.1111/j.1439-0523.1988.tb00261.x]
3. Eberhart, S.A. and W.A. Russell. 1966. Stability parameters for comparing varieties. Crop Science, 6: 36-40. [DOI:10.2135/cropsci1966.0011183X000600010011x]
4. Farshadfar, E. 2010. New issues in biometric genetic. Vol. 2. Islamic Azad University, Kermanshah, 848 pp (In Persian).
5. Finlay, K.W. and G.N. Wilkinson. 1963. The analysis of adaptation in a plant breeding program. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 14: 742-754. [DOI:10.1071/AR9630742]
6. Flores, F., M.T. Moreno and J.L. Cubero. 1998. A comparison of univariate and multivariate methods to analyze environments. Field Crops Research, 56: 271-286. [DOI:10.1016/S0378-4290(97)00095-6]
7. Francis, T.R. and L.W. Kannenberg. 1978. Yield stability studies in short-season Maize: 1. a descriptive method for grouping genotypes. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 58: 1029-1034. [DOI:10.4141/cjps78-157]
8. Hosseini, S.Z. 2016. Evaluation of drought tolerance in canola (Brassica napus L.) Genotypes, using biplot analysis. Journal of Crop Breeding, 8: 192-202 (In Persian).
9. Hatamzadeh, H. 2007. Study of seed yield stability in safflower lines and cultivars in expected planting under rainfed condition of Kermanshah. Seed and Plant Improvement Journal, 23: 145-159 (In Persian).
10. Javidfar, F., M.h. Alamkhomaram, H. Amirioghan and SH. Azizi-nia. 2004. Yield stability analysis of winter canola (Brassica napus L.) genotypes. Seed and Plant Journal, 2:315-328 (In Persian).
11. Kang, M.S. 1993. Simultaneous selection for yield and stability in crop performance trials: Consequences for growers. Agronomy Journal, 85: 754-757. [DOI:10.2134/agronj1993.00021962008500030042x]
12. Lin, C.S. and M.R. Binns. 1988. A superiority measure of cultivar performance for cultivar×location data. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 68: 193-198. [DOI:10.4141/cjps88-018]
13. Marjanovic-Jeromela-JEROMELA, A., R. Marinkoic, A. Mijic, M. Jankuloska, Z. Zdunic and N. Nagl. 2008. Oil yield stability of winter rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) Genotypes. Agriculturae Conspectus Scientificus, 73: 217-220.
14. Moghadam, A. 2003. Simultaneous selection for yield and stability and it's comparison with stability different statistics. Seed and Plant Journal, 19: 1-13 (In Persian).
15. Mohammadi, M., M. Armion, E. Zadhassan and M. Eskandari. 2013. Analysis of genotype×einvironment interaction for grain yield in rainfed durum wheat, Iranian Journal of Dryland Agriculture, 1: 1-15 (In Persian). [DOI:10.1626/pps.14.15]
16. Mokhtarifar, K., R. Abdolshahi and Sh. Pour Seyyedy. 2016. Yield stability analysis of eight bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars in kerman province condition. Journal of Crop Breeding, 8: 96-103 (In Persian). [DOI:10.18869/acadpub.jcb.8.17.103]
17. Mortrazavian, M. and SH. Azizi-nia. 2014. Nonparametric stability analysis in multi-environment trial of canola. Turkish journal of Field Crops, 19: 108-117 (In Persian). [DOI:10.17557/tjfc.41390]
18. Mostafavi, KH., A. Mohammadi, M. Khodarahmi and M. Zare. 2012. Yield Response of Commercial Canola Cultivars to Different Locations Using Graphical GGE biplot Method. Agronomy and plant breeding Journal, 4: 133-143 (In Persian).
19. Nowosad, K., A. Liersch, W. Popawska and J. Bocianowski. 2016. Genotype by environment interaction for seed yield in rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) using additive main effects and multiplicative interaction model. Euphytica, 208: 187-194. [DOI:10.1007/s10681-015-1620-z]
20. Perkins, J.M. and J.L. Jinks. 1971. Specifity of the interaction of genotypes with contrasting environments. Heredity, 26: 463-474. [DOI:10.1038/hdy.1971.57]
21. Pinthus, M.J. 1973. Estimate of genotypic value: a proposed method. Euphytica, 22: 121-123. [DOI:10.1007/BF00021563]
22. Plaisted, R.L. and L.C. Peterson. 1959. A technique for evaluating the ability of selections to yield consistently in different locations or seasons. American Potato Journal, 36: 381-385. [DOI:10.1007/BF02852735]
23. Pourdad, S.S. and M. Jamshid Moghadam. 2013. Study on genotype×environment interaction through GGE biplot for seed yield in spring rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) in rain-fed condition. Journal of Crop Breeding, 5: 1-14.
24. Purchase, J.L. 1997. Parametric analysis to describe G×E interaction and yield stability in winter wheat. PhD thesis. Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, University of the Orange Free State. 83 pp.
25. Roemer, T. 1917. Sin die Ertragsreichen Sorten Ertragssicherer. Mitt. DLG, 32: 87-89.
26. Shahmohammadi, M., H. Dehghan and A. yousefi. 2005. Stability analysis of Barely genotypes in regional trial in cold zone. Journal of Science and Technology of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 9: 143-155 (In Persian).
27. Sharifi, S., A. Rezaizad and L. Shoshtari. 2016. Study on grain yield stability of new oilseed rape lines under late season drought stress conditions. Iranian Journal of Crop Science, 17: 288-300 (In Persian).
28. Shukla, G.K. 1972. Some statistical aspects of partitioning genotype-environmental components of variability. Heredity, 29: 237-245 [DOI:10.1038/hdy.1972.87]
29. Sidlauskas, G. and S. Bernotas. 2003. Some factors affecting seed yield of spring oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.). Agronomy Research, 1: 229-243.
30. Sunchez Martin, J., D. Rubials, F. Flores, A.A. Emeran, M.J.Y. Shtaya, J.C. Sillero, M.B. Allagui and E. Parts. 2014. Adaptation of oat (Avena Sativa) cultivars to autumn sowing in Mediterranean environments. Field Crrop Research, 156: 111-122. [DOI:10.1016/j.fcr.2013.10.018]
31. Tahira, A.R. and A. Muhammad. 2013. Stability Analysis of Rapeseed Genotypes Targeted Across Irrigated Conditions of Pakistan. International Journal of Agriculture Innovations and Research, 2: 208-212.
32. Wricke, G. 1962. Uber eine methode zur refassung der okologischen streubretite in feldversuchen, Flazenzuecht, 47: 92-96.
33. Yan, W. and I. Rajcan. 2002. Biplot analysis of test sites and trait relations of soybean in Ontario. Crop Science, 42: 11-20. [DOI:10.2135/cropsci2002.0011]
34. Yang, R., J. Crossa, P. Cornelius and J. Bugueno. 2009. Biplot analysis of genotypeenvironment interaction: Proceed with caution. Crop Science, 49: 1564-1576. [DOI:10.2135/cropsci2008.11.0665]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
