Volume 11, Issue 30 (9-2019)
jcb 2019, 11(30): 1-10 |
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:
Sofalian O, ahmadpoor S, Darvishzadeh R, Hatamzadeh H. (2019). Evaluation of Yield Stability of Sunflower Inbred Lines under Salt Stress Conditions. jcb. 11(30), 1-10. doi:10.29252/jcb.11.30.1
URL: http://jcb.sanru.ac.ir/article-1-860-en.html
URL: http://jcb.sanru.ac.ir/article-1-860-en.html
University of Mohaghegh Ardabili
Abstract: (3194 Views)
The genotype by environment interaction is a major challenge in the study of quantitative characters because it complicates the interpretation of genetic experiments and do predictions difficult, also it reduces grain seed yield stability in different environments. In order to determine the yield stability, adaptability and analysis of the genotype × environment interaction of oily sunflower inbred lines under normal and salt stress conditions, 100 genotypes coming from different geographical regions were evaluated using a randomized complete block design with three replications for two successive years (2006 to 2007). In stability analysis using statistics such as environmental variance and coefficient of variation, lines 71 and 33 showed minimum variations compared to other lines. Based on Eberhart and Russell regression method, lines 71, 45, 40 and 25 was the most stable genotypes. AMMI statistics revealed lines with code numbers of 71, 77, 93 and 51 as the most stable genotypes. Biplot technique was used to identify the appropriate genotypes for special environments. Based on this method, lines 71, 61 and 17 showed the lowest interaction and considered as the most stable genotypes. However, line 71 showed highest seed yield compared two other lines. The line with code number of 50 showed special stability and high yield under normal conditions whereas lines 90, 48 showed special stability and high yield under salt stress conditions. In conclusion, based on different stability analysis statistics and AMMI analysis the line 71 are introduced as most stable line under normal and salt stress conditions.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Special
Received: 2017/11/4 | Revised: 2019/08/31 | Accepted: 2018/05/30 | Published: 2019/09/11
Received: 2017/11/4 | Revised: 2019/08/31 | Accepted: 2018/05/30 | Published: 2019/09/11
References
1. Albert, M.J.A. 2004. A comparison of statical methods to describegenotype × environment interaction and yield stability in multi-location maizetrials. M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Plant Science, the University of the Free State, Blomfontein, South Africa. 96 pp.
2. Akcura, M., Y. Kaya and S. Taner. 2005. Genotype-environment interaction andphenotypic stability analysis for grain yield of durum wheat in the centralAntaolian region. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 29(5): 369-375.
3. Crossa, J., H.G. Gauch and R.W. Zobel. 1990. Additive main effects and multiplicative interaction analysis of two maize cultivar trials. Crop Science, 30(3): 493-500. [DOI:10.2135/cropsci1990.0011183X003000030003x]
4. Deharo, A., M. Del Rio, J.C. Lopez, M.A. Garcia, M.J. Palomares and J. Fernandes Martines. 1997. Evaluation of the world collection of safflower for oil quality and otherseed characters. Sesame Safflower Newsl, 6: 94-99.
5. Eberhart, S.A. and W.A. Russell. 1966. Stability parameters for comparing varieties. Crop Science, 6(1): 36-40. [DOI:10.2135/cropsci1966.0011183X000600010011x]
6. Fattahi, F. and A. Yusefi. 2005. Evaluation of yield stability of barley genotypesusing stability parameters and pattern analysis via AMMI model. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 37: 317-326.
7. Finlay, K.W. and G.N. Wilkinson. 1963. The analysis of adaptation in a plant breeding program. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 14(6): 742-754. [DOI:10.1071/AR9630742]
8. Francis, T.R. and L.W. Kannenberg. 1978. Yield stability studies in short-season maize. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 58(4): 1029-1034. [DOI:10.4141/cjps78-157]
9. Farshadfar, E. 2000. Application of Biometrical Genetics in Plant Breeding. Razi University Press, Kermanshah, Iran. 396 pp. (In Persian).
10. Gauch, H.G. 1992. Statistical Analysis of Regional Yield Trials: AMMI Analysis of Factorial Designs. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier, 278 pp.
11. Guach, H.G. and R.W. Zobel. 1997. Identifying mega environments andtargeting genotypes. Crop Science, 37(2): 311-326. [DOI:10.2135/cropsci1997.0011183X003700020002x]
12. Goncalves, P., N. Bartoletto, R. Martns and G. Gallo. 2003. Genotype-environment interaction and phenotypic stability for girth growth and rubber yield of hevea clones in Sao Paulo state, Brizil. Genetics and MolecularBiology, 26(4): 441-48. [DOI:10.1590/S1415-47572003000400007]
13. Hossain, M.A., L. Rahmand and A.K.M. Shamsuddin. 2003. Genotype environment interaction and stability analysis in soybean. Journal of Biological Sciences, 3(11): 1026-1031. [DOI:10.3923/jbs.2003.1026.1031]
14. Hatamzadeh, H., A. Khazai and K.H. Alizadeh. 2011. Identification of stable genotypes of rapeseed using some parametric and non-parametric methods under dryland conditions. International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences, 2(1): 73-84.
15. IRRISTAT 4.3 for Windows. 2002. Tutorial Manual, Biometrics Unit. International Rice Research Institute, 182 pp.
16. Kadi, Z., F. Adjel and H. Bouzerzour. 2010. Analysis of genotype environment interaction of barley grain yield (Hordeum vulgar L.) under semi arid conditions. Advances in Environmental Biology, 4(1): 34-40.
17. Kaya, Y., M. Akcura and S. Taner. 2006. GGE-Biplot analysis of multi environment yield trials in bread wheat. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 30(6): 325-337.
18. Lin, C. and M.R. Binns. 1991. Genetic properties of four types of stability parameter. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 82(4): 505-509. [DOI:10.1007/BF00588606]
19. Moameni, A., H. Siadat and M.J. Malakouti. 1999. The extent distribution and management of saltaffected soils of Iran. FAO Global Network on Integrated Soil Management for Sustainable Use of Salt affected Soils. Izmir, Turkey.
20. Morsali Aghajari, F., R. Darvishzadeh, H. Hatami Maleki, M. Barin and N. Abbaspour. 2015. Identification of QTLs controlling yield and yield components in sunflower under salinity stress conditions. Iranian Journal of Filed Crop Science, 47(1): 87-98 (In Persian).
21. Nezami, A., H.R. Khazaei, Z. Boroumand Rezazadeh and A. Hosseini. 2008. Effects of drought stress and defoliation on sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) in controlled conditions. Desert, 12(2): 99-104.
22. Narkhede, B.N. and A.M. Patil. 1990. Phenotypic stability in safflower. Journal of Maharashtra Agricultural University, 15(1): 95-96.
23. Plaisted, R.L. and L.C. Peterson. 1959. A technique for evaluating the ability of selection to yield consistently in different locations and seasons. American Potato Journal, 36(11): 381-385. [DOI:10.1007/BF02852735]
24. Purchase, J.L., H. Hatting and C.S. Vandeventer. 2000. Genotype×environment interaction of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in South Africa: II. Stability analysis of yield performance. South African Journal of Plant and Soil, 17(3): 101-107. [DOI:10.1080/02571862.2000.10634878]
25. Pinthus, J.M. 1973. Estimate of genotype value: a proposed method. Euphitica, 22(1): 121-123. [DOI:10.1007/BF00021563]
26. Rudra, V., B.N. Harish and S.D. Yaragoppa. 2005. Phenotypic stability for safflower advanced breeding lines under rainfed ecosystem of north Karnataka. VIth International SafflowerConference, 26-30 pp.
27. Roemer, T. 1917. Sin die ertragsreichen sorten ertragssicherer. Mitt. DLG, 32: 87-89.
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. Schoeman, L.J. 2003. Genotype× environment interaction in sunflower (Helianthus annuus) in south Aefrica. M. Sc. Thesis, Department of Agronomy, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa. 200 pp.
30. Vashev, B., T. Gaiser, T. Ghawana, A. de Vries and K. Stahr. 2010. Biosafor Project Deliverable 9: Cropping Potentials for Saline Areas in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. University of Hohenheim, Hohenheim, Germany.
31. Wricke, G. 1962. Uber eine methode zur refassung der okologischen streubretite in feldversuchen. Flazenzuecht, 47: 92-96.
32. Zobel, R.W. and H.G. Gauch. 1988. Statistical analysis of a yield trial. Agronomy Journal, 80(3): 388-393. [DOI:10.2134/agronj1988.00021962008000030002x]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
