Adaptability and yield stability of black seed quinoa compared to white seed lines under saline conditions

Document Type : Complete scientific research article

Authors

1 National Salinity Research Center, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Yazd, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor, Khorasan Razavi Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization, Mashhad, Iran,

3 Associate Professor, Fars Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization, Shiraz, Iran

4 Assistant Professor, Agricultural and Horticultural Department, Golestan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization, Gorgan, Iran,

Abstract

Introduction: Quinoa is a dicotyledonous plant from the Amaranthaceae family. Due to the high nutritional value of the plant, several breeding programs were started on quinoa in different parts of the world. Commercially, quinoa has three colors: black, red and white. The Sadouq variety has been introduced as a white seed variety and is tolerant to salt stress (7). The purpose of introducing the black seed variety is the market demand for the production of three-color quinoa. The aim of this research is to investigate the compatibility of quinoa variety Rahmat with black and large seeds in comparison with white seed cultivars and lines.
Materials and methods: This study was conducted during two crop years (2018-2019) in four regions (Yazd, Sabzevar, Shiraz and Iranshahr) in the form of a complete randomized block design with six genotypes and three replications. The planting date in each region was determined based on the daily weather conditions in each region. After harvesting, seed yield, 1000 seed weight, seed size and saponin content were measured. At first, Bartlett's test was performed and combined analysis and stability analysis were performed using different parametric and non-parametric methods.
Results: Combined analysis showed that the three-way interaction effect of year, place and genotype on the measured traits was significant. The highest seed yield of Rahmat cultivar observed in Iranshahr (407 g m-2) after Sadouq cultivar (488 g m-2). The lowest seed yield of Rahmat variety was observed in the studied areas in Yazd (249 g m-2). In terms of the 1000 seeds weight, the highest and lowest 1000 seeds weight were observed in Iranshahr (3.9 g) and Yazd (2.9 g), respectively. In Iranshahr, 68% and in other region 45% of the seeds of Rahmat variety were placed in the large seed size class. The saponin content of Rahmat cultivar was strongly influenced by the environment. The highest and lowest amount of saponin of Rahmat variety was observed in Sabzevar and Iranshahr. Analysis of GGEbiplot method showed that Rahmat cultivar had high specific adaptability after Sadouq in Iranshahr and Sabzevar. Based on the average total rank, Sadouq variety (1.18±2.0), C line (1.37±2.2) and Rahmat variety (2.61±3.5) had the highest grain yield stability, respectively.
Conclusion: The sum of Kang's rank and other non-parametric methods used led to the selection of stable lines in the investigated environments, but the GGEbiplot method had the ability to show the specific adaptation of the Rahmat variety with the environments. Parametric and non-parametric methods based on yield rank and stability variance showed that Rahmat cultivar was ranked third and was better than Titicaca cultivar in the investigated environments.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Bazile, D., Bertero, H.D., & Nieto, C. (2015). State of the art report on quinoa around the world in 2013. 2015, FAO .650 pp.
  2. 2. Murphy, K.S. & Matanguihan, J. (2015). Quinoa: Improvement and Sustainable Production. John Wiley & Sons.235 pp.
  3. 3. FAO, (2020). FAOSTAT- Crops. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en.
  4. 4. Shahbandeh, M., (2022). Statista - Quinoa production worldwide from 2010 to 2020 (in metric tons). Available from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/ 486442/ globalquinoa-production.
  5. 5. Vega-Gálvez, , Miranda, M., Vergara, J., Uribe, E., Puente, L., & Martínez, E.A. (2010). Nutrition facts and functional potential of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa willd.), an ancient Andean grain: a review. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 90(15), 2547-2541.
  6. 6. Alandia, G., Rodriguez, J.P., Jacobsen, S.E., Bazile, D., & Condori, B. (2020). Global expansion of quinoa and challenges for the Andean region. Global Food Security, 26, 100429.
  7. 7. Salehi, M. & Dehghani, F. (2024). Determination of salinity stress tolerance threshold of quinoa genotypes under field conditions. Enviromental Stresses in Crop Science, 16(4), 1123-1137.
  8. 8. Maleki, P., Bahrami, H.A., Saadat, S., Sharifi, F., Dehghani, F. & Salehi, M., (2018). Salinity threshold value of Quinoa (Chenopodium Quinoa‎) at‎ various growth stages and the appropriate‎ irrigation method by saline‎ water. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 49(15), 1815-1825.
  9. 9. Meskini-Vishkaee, F., Tafteh, A., & Goosheh, M. (2023). Determining the Quinoa Water Requirement and Plant Response Coefficients to Water Stress in Different Growth Stages in Khuzestan Climate. Journal of Water and Soil Science, 27(1), 275-286.
  10. 10. Tafteh, A. & Emdad, M.R., (2022). Determination of crop yield response factor (ky) in deficit irrigation management at different stages of Quinoa Plant Growth. Water Management in Agriculture, 8(2), 101-116.
  11. 11. Allen, R.G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D. Smith, M. (1998). FAO irrigation and drainage paper.FAO.
  12. 12. Fghire, R., Anaya, F., Issa, O.A., & Wahbi, S. (2017). Physiological and growth response traits to water deficit as indicators of tolerance criteria between quinoa genotypes. Journal of Materials and Environmental Sciences, 8(6), 2084-2093.
  13. 13. Kanouni, H., Farayedi, Y., Sabaghpour, S., & Saeid, A. (2016). Assessment of genotype× environment interaction effect on seed yield of chickpea (Cicer arietinum) lines under rainfed winter planting conditions. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences, 18(1), 295-312.
  14. 14. Zali, H., Sabaghpour, S., Farshadfar, E., Pezeshkpour, P., Safikhani, M., Sarparast, R., & Hashem Beygi, A. (2008). Stability analysis of yield in chickpea genotypes by additive main effects and multiplicative interaction (AMMI). JWSS-Isfahan University of Technology, 11(42), 173-
  15. 15. Zobel, R.W., Wright, M.J., & Gauch Jr, H.G. (1988). Statistical analysis of a yield trial. Agronomy Journal. 80(3), 388-393.
  16. 16. Karimizadeh, R., Safikhani Nasimi, M., Mohammadi, M., Seyyedi, F., Mahmoodi, A., & Rostami, B. (2008). Determining rank and stability of lentil genotypes in rainfed condition by nonparametric statistics. JWSS-Isfahan University of Technology, 12(43), 93-102.
  17. 17. Asghari Zakaria, R. & Hassanpanah, D. (2018). Non-Parametric Stability Analysis of Tuber Yield in Potato (Solanum tuberosum) Genotypes. Journal of Crop Breeding, 10(28), 50-63.
  18. 18. Movahhedi, Z., Dehghani, H., & Mofidian, M., (2010). A study of yield stability in cold region ecotypes of alfalfa (Medicago sativa) through non-parametric measures. Iranian Journal of Field Crop Science, 40(4), 103-111.
  19. 19. Pourdad, S.S., Moghaddam, M., Faraji, A., & Naraki, H. (2014). Study on different non-parametric stability methods on seed yield of spring rapeseed varieties and hybrids. Iranian Journal of Field Crop Science, 44(4), 539-548.
  20. 20. Sabaghnia, N., Mohammadi, M., & Karimizadeh, R. (2013). Interpreting genotype× environment interaction of beard wheat genotypes using different nonparametric stability statistics. Poljoprivreda i Sumarstvo, 59(2), 21-35.
  21. 21. Segherloo, A.E., Sabaghpour, S.H., Dehghani, H., & Kamrani, M. (2008). Non-parametric measures of phenotypic stability in chickpea genotypes (Cicer arietinum). Euphytica, 162, 221-229.
  22. 22. Alizadeh, B., Rezaizad, A., Yazdandoost Hamedani, M., Shiresmaeili, G., Nasserghadimi, F., Khademhamzeh, H.R., & Gholizadeh, A. (2020). Evaluation of seed yield stability of winter rapeseed (Brassica napus) genotypes using non-parametric methods. Journal of Crop Breeding, 12(35), 202-212.
  23. 23. Mortazavian, S., Nikkhah, H., Hassani, F., Sharif-al-Hosseini, M., Taheri, M., & Mahlooji, M. (2014). GGE biplot and AMMI analysis of yield performance of barley genotypes across different environments in Iran. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 16(3), 609-622.
  24. 24. Dehghani, M.R., Majidi, M.M., Mirlohi, A., & Saeidi, G. (2016). Integrating parametric and non-parametric measures to investigate genotype× environment interactions in tall fescue. Euphytica. 208, 583-596.
  25. 25. Khalili, & Pour, A. (2016). Parametric and non-parametric measures for evaluating yield stability and adaptability in barley doubled haploid lines. Journal of Agriculture Science and Technology, 18, 789-803.
  26. 26. Smith, E.L. (1987). A Review of Plant-breeding Strategies for Rain-fed Areas. Drought Tolerance in Winter Cereals. John wiley and sons.
  27. 27. Nassar, R. & Huehn, M. (1987). Studies on estimation of phenotypic stability: Tests of significance for nonparametric measures of phenotypic stability. Biometrics, 43, 45-53.
  28. 28. Huehn, M., 1990. Nonparametric measures of phenotypic stability. Part 1: Theory. Euphytica, 47, 189-194.
  29. 29. Thennarasu, K. (1995). On Certain Non-parametric Procedures for Studying Genotype-Environment Inertactions and Yield Stability. 1995. IARI, Division of Agricultural Statistics, New Delhi.
  30. 30. Salehi, M., Soltani, V., & Dehghani, F. (2019). Effect of sowing date on phenologic stages and yield of Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa ) under saline condition. Enviromental Stresses in Crop Science, 12(3), 923-932.
  31. 31. Koziol, M.J. (1991). Afrosimetric estimation of threshold saponin concentration for bitterness in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd). Journal of the Science of Food and Agricultur, 54(2), 211-219.
  32. 32. Pour‐Aboughadareh, , Yousefian, M., Moradkhani, H., Poczai, P., & Siddique, K.H. (2019). STABILITYSOFT: A new online program to calculate parametric and non‐parametric stability statistics for crop traits. Applications in plant sciences, 7(1), e01211.
  33. 33. Istanbulluoglu, A., Gocmen, E., Gezer, E., Pasa, C., & Konukcu, F. (2009). Effects of water stress at different development stages on yield and water productivity of winter and summer safflower (Carthamus tinctorius). Agricultural Water Management, 96, 1429–1434.
  34. 34. El Hazzam, K., Hafsa, J., Sobeh, M., Mhada, M., Taourirte, M., El Kacimi, K., & Yasri, A. (2020). An Insight into Saponins from Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd): A Review. Molecules, 25(5), 1059.
  35. 35. Tabatabaei, I., Alseekh, S., Shahid, M., Leniak, E., Wagner, M., Mahmoudi, H., Thushar, S., Fernie, A.R., Murphy, K.M., & Schmöckel, S.M. (2022). The diversity of quinoa morphological traits and seed metabolic composition. Scientific data, 9(1), 323.
  36. 36. Alcocer, E., Choquecallata, S., López , & Marca, F. (2017). Development of Quinoa and Corn Extrusions. In: Records of the Scientific and Technological Symposium on Sustainable Production of Quinoa and Related Species [Memoria de la Jornada Científica y Tecnológica de la Producción Sostenible de Quinua y Especies Afines], pp. 130-132. CIQ, Bolivia. Available at: https://www.ciq.org.bo/images/documentos /MEMORIA%20JORNADAS%20CIENTIFICAS%20QUINUA2017.pdf.
  37. 37. Dendy, D.A. & Dobraszczyk, B.J. (2004). Cereales y productos derivados, Química y tecnología. Ed. Acribia. Zaragoza, España, 403-421.
  38. 38. Liu, C., Ma, R., & Tian, Y. (2022). An overview of the nutritional profile, processing technologies, and health benefits of quinoa with an emphasis on impacts of processing. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 64 (16), 5533-5550.
  39. 39. Yan, W. (2001). GGEbiplot—A Windows application for graphical analysis of multienvironment trial data and other types of two‐way data. Agronomy Journal, 93(5), 1111-1118.
  40. 40. Jafari, T. & Farshadfar, E. (2018). Stability analysis of bread wheat genotypes (Triticum aestivum ) by GGE biplot. Cereal Research, 8(2), 199-208.
  41. 41. Plaisted, R. & Peterson, L. (1959). A technique for evaluating the ability of selections to yield consistently in different locations or seasons. American Potato Journal, 36, 381-385.
  42. 42. Wricke, G. 1962. Uber eine Methode zur Erfassung der okologischen Streubreite in Feldverzuchen. pflanzenzuchtg, 47, 92-96.
  43. 43. Finlay, K. & Wilkinson, G. (1963). The analysis of adaptation in a plant-breeding programme. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 14(6), 742-754.
  44. 44. Eberhart, S.t. & Russell, W. (1966). Stability parameters for comparing varieties 1. Crop Science, 6(1), 36-40.
  45. 45. Shukla, G. (1972). Some statistical aspects of partitioning genotype environmental components of variability. Heredity, 29(2), 237-245.
  46. 46. Francis, T. & Kannenberg, L. (1978). Yield stability studies in short-season maize. I. A descriptive method for grouping genotypes. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 58(4), 1029-1034.
  47. 47. Roostaei, M., Rajabi, R., Jafarzadeh, J. & Mohammadi, R. (2021). Assessment of drought tolerance and grain yield stability performance of rainfed winter bread wheat (Triticum aestivum) genotypes. Crop Breeding Journal, 11 (1 & 2), 25-44.
  48. 48. Roostaei, M., Sadeghzadeh Ahari, D., Hesami, A., Soleymani, K., Pashapour, H., Nader Mahmoudi, K., Pour Siah Bidi, M., Ahmadi, M., Hassanpour Hosni, M., & Abediasl, G. (2003). Study Of Adaptability And Stability Of Grain Yield Of Bread Wheat Genotypes In Cold And Moderate-Colddryland Areas. Seed and Plant Journal, 19(2), 263-275.
  49. 49. Daneshian, J. & Ahmadi, M. (2023). Selection of Advanced Soybean Lines in Dry Conditions Using Stability Methods. Iranian Journal of Field Crop Research, 54(2), 1-14.
Journal of Crop Production
Volume 17, Issue 4
December 2025
Pages 1-22

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics