Selection of promising durum wheat lines according to grain yield and yield stability using graphic methods and quality indexes

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Seed and Plant Improvement Department, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran

2 Scientific staff of Agricultural Research station of Darab

3 Crop and Horticultural Science Research Department, Kermanshah Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Kermanshah, Iran

4 Crop and Horticultural Science Research Department, Lorestan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Khorramabad, Iran

5 7. Crop and Horticultural Science Research Department, Dezful Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Dezful, Iran

6 Seed and Plant Improvement Department, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, iran

7 Assistant professor, Seed and Plant Improvement Department, Fars Agricultural and Natural Resources Research Center, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Darab, iran

Abstract

Abstract
Background and objectives: Durum wheat (Triticum turgidum L. var. durum) is an industrial and agricultural product that is mainly used in pasta production industries. One of the important goals of durum wheat breeding programs is to produce high-yielding cultivars that have suitable characteristics for cultivation in different regions of the country. Therefore, the purpose of this research was to investigate the genotype × environment interaction using GGE biplot graphic method in durum wheat promising lines and to identify and introduce lines with economic and stable yield for introduction and cultivation in different regions of the country.
Materials and methods: In this research, 18 promising lines of durum wheat with two check Hana and Aran in five research stations of Karaj, Kermanshah, Khorramabad, Dezful and Darab (under two conditions of normal irrigation and interruption of irrigation during the flowering stage) in the form of randomized complete blocks design in 3 replications and in two cropping seasons (2019-2021) were cultivated and compared.
Results: The results of two-year combined variance analysis for grain yield under normal irrigation conditions in five research stations of Darab, Dezful, Khorramabad, Karaj and Kermanshah and dry conditions at the end of the season in Darab showed that the effect of year in both conditions and all stations was significant. It has been in terms of grain yield under normal irrigation conditions, the difference between genotypes was significant in Darab, Dezful and Kermanshah stations, but not significant in Karaj and Khorramabad stations. Genotype × year interaction was significant under normal conditions in Darab and Kermanshah, but not significant in Karaj, Dezful and Khorramabad. Based on the average grain yield, lines G8, G9, G10, G14 and G18 (respectively with the average grain yield of 7725, 7597, 7742, 7661 and 7558 kg ha-1) were superior to the checks. According to the GGE biplot, three large environments were identified. The first large environment included Dezful and Khorramabad regions, and G8 and G10 genotypes were among the top genotypes in these two regions, respectively. The second largest environment was Kermanshah and Karaj, and G9 and G14 genotypes were among the top genotypes in these two regions. The third large environment included two test conditions in Darab and the superior genotype in Darab was G18 in both drought stress and non-stress conditions. GGE Biplot results showed that G8 and G10 genotypes were among the most stable lines and also had the highest grain yield. The comparison of the studied lines with the ideal genotype showed that G10 and G8 are the closest genotypes to the ideal genotype, which have the highest grain yield and stability. The results of qualitative characteristics showed that the hardness index mean of different genotypes was in the range of 57-58% and the promising lines were not significantly different from the check cultivars. G17 genotype had the lowest (14%) and G14 genotype had the highest average of grain yellow berry (45%). Also, a relatively large variation was observed in terms of the amount of wet gluten, so that genotypes G9 and G13 had the lowest and highest amount of wet gluten with 23.8 and 27.3%, respectively.
Conclusion: In general, according to the average grain yield and GGE biplot results in both normal and drought conditions and according to some quality characteristics of the grain, lines G8 (D-98-8) and G10 (D-98-10) were selected as the most suitable lines for both normal and dry conditions. These lines will be tested in on-farm yield trials of next crop season and finally one of them will be introduced as a new cultivar.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Brennan, J. P., Aw-Hassan, A., Quade, K. J., & Nordblom, T. L. (2002). Impact of ICARDA Research on Australian Agriculture, Economic Research Report No. 11. NSW Agriculture, Wagga Wagga.
  2. Dastfal, M., Aghaee-Sarbarzeh, M., & Zali, H. (2022). Genetic diversity and selection of durum wheat pure lines with desirable agronomy traits using SIIG index. Iranian Journal of Field Crop Science, 53, 161-174. [In Persian]
  3. Gresta, F., Avolab, G., Cannavòa, S., & Santonocetoa, C. (2018). Morphological, biological, productive and qualitative characterization of guar (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba Taub.) genotypes. Industrial Crops and Products, 114, 98-107.
  4. Esmaeilzadeh Moghaddam, M., Tahmasebi, S., Lotf Ali Ayeneh, Gh A., Akbari Moghadam, H., Mahmoudi, Kh., Sayyahfar, M., Tabib Ghaffari, S. M., & Zali, H. (2018). Iranian Journal of Crop Science, 20(1), 61-76. [In Persian]
  5. Gauch, H. G. (1992). Statistical Analysis of Regional Trials. AMMI analysis of factorial designs. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 287pp.
  6. Yan, W., Hunt, L. A. Sheny, Q., & Szlavnics, Z. (2000). Cultivar evaluation and mega-environment investigation based on the GGE biplot. Crop Science, 40, 597- 605.
  7. Yan, W., & Kang, M. S. (2003). GGE biplot analysis: A graphical tool for breeders, Geneticists and agronomists. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
  8. Yan, W. 2001. GGEbiplot-A windows application for graphical analysis of multi-environment trial data and other types of two-way data. Agronomy Journal, 93, 1111-1118.
  9. Pourdad, S. S., & Jamshid Moghaddam, M. (2013). Study on genotype × environment interaction through GGE biplot for seed yield in spring rapeseed (Brassica Napus) in rain-fed condition. Journal of Crop Breeding, 5 (12), 1-14. [In Persian]
  10. Yan, W., & Tinker, N. A. (2005). An integrated biplot analysis system for displaying, interpreting and exploring genotype × environment interaction. Crop Science, 45, 1004-1016.
  11. Farshadfar, E., Zali, H., & Mohammadi, R. (2011). Evaluation of phenotypic stability in chickpea genotypes using GGE-Biplot. Annals Biological Research, 2 (6), 282-292.
  12. Najafi Mirak, T., Dastfal, M., Andarzian, B., Farzadi, H., Bahari, M., & Zali, H. (2018). Evaluation of durum wheat cultivars and promising lines for yield and yield stability in warm and dry areas using AMMI model and GGE biplot. Journal of crop Breeding, 10 (28), 1-12.
  13. Rao, P. S., Reddy, P. S. Ratore, A., Reddy B. V. S., & Panwar, S. (2011). Application GGE biplot and AMMI model to evaluate sweet sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) hybrids for genotype× environment interaction and seasonal adaptation. Indian Journal of Agricultural Science, 81, 438-444.
  14. Zali, H., Sofalian, O., Hasanloo, T., & Asghari, A. (2016). Evaluation of yield stability and drought tolerance-based AMMI and GGE biplot analysis in Brassica napus Agricultural Communications, 4(1), 1-8.
  15. Karimizadeh, R., Pezeshkpour, P., Barzali, M., Mehraban, A., & Sharifi, P. (2020). Evaluation the mean performance and stability of lentil genotypes by combining features of AMMI and BLUP techniques. Journal of Crop Breeding, 12 (36), 160-170. [In Persian]
  16. Zali, H., Barati, A., & Jabari, M. (2021). Evaluation of variation at barley inbred lines (Hordeum vulgare) using SIIG Index. Journal of Crop Breeding, 13 (39), 179-194.
  17. Mohammadi, R., Armion, M., Sadeghzadeh, B., Golkari, S., Khalilzadeh, Gh., Ahmadi, H., Abedi-Asl, Gh., & Eskandari, M. (2016). Assessment of grain yield stability and adaptability of rainfed durum wheat breeding lines. Applied Field Crops Research, 29 (4), 25-42. [In Persian]
  18. Fan, X. M., Kang, M. S. Chen, H., Zhang, Y., Tan, J., & Xu, C. (2007). Yield stability of maize hybrids evaluated in multi-environment trials in Yunnan, China. Agronomy Journal, (99), 220-228.
  19. Yan, W., & Rajcan, I. (2002). Biplot analysis of sites and trait relations of soybean in Ontario. Crop Science, (42), 11-20.
  20. Barati, A., Zali, H., Lakzadeh, I., Koohkan, Sh., Jafarby, J. A., Hosseinpour, A., Jabari, M., Marzooghian, A., Gholipour, A., Poodineh, O., & Kheirgoo, M. (2022). Study of grain yield stability of barley promising lines in warm regions using GGE biplot. Journal of Agricultural Science Sustainable Production, 1(32), 65-78. [In Persian]
  21. Farshadfar, E., Sabaghpour, S. H., & Zali, H. (2012). Comparison of parametric and non‐parametric stability statistics for selecting stable chickpea (Cicer arietinum) genotypes under diverse environments. Australian Journal of Crop Science, 6, 514‐524.
  22. Navabi, A., Yang, R., Helm, J., & Spaner, D. M. (2006). Can spring wheat-growing mega environments in the northern Great Plains be dissected for representative locations or niche adapted genotypes? Crop Science, (46), 1107–1116.
  23. Cutler, G. H., & Brinson, G. A. (1990). The granulation of whole wheat meal and a method of expressing it numerically. Cereal Chemistry, (12), 120-129.
  24. Donelson, J. R., & Yamazaki, W. T. (1982). Note on a rapid method of the estimation of damaged starch in soft wheat flours. Cereal Chemistry, (39), 460-462.
  25. Tohver, M. (2007). High molecular weight (HMW) glutenin subunit composition of Nordic and Middle European wheat. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, (54), 67-81.
  26. Singh, N. K., Shepherd, K. W., & Comish, G.B. (1991). Rapid communication: a simplified SDS-PAGE. Procedure for separating LMW subunits of Glutenin. Journal of Cereal Science, (14), 203-208.
  27. Walsh, D. E., & Gills, K. A. (1971). Influence of protein composition on spaghetti quality. Cereal Chemistry, 48, 544-554.
  28. Zhao, C., Ning, T., Jiao, N., Han, B., & Li, Z. (2005). Effects of genotype and environment on protein and starch quality of wheat grain. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 16, 1257-1260.
  29. Guttieri, M. J., Ahmad, R., Stark, J. C., & Souza, E. (2000). End-use quality of six hard red spring wheat cultivars at different irrigation levels. Crop Science, (40), 631-635.
Journal of Crop Production
Volume 16, Issue 3
October 2024
Pages 91-108

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics