اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات285
تعداد نشریات سازمان83
تعداد شماره‌ها3,094
تعداد مقالات34,531
تعداد مشاهده مقاله49,375,850
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله79,824,359
نیستانی, الیاس, حیدری, مصطفی, عامری, علی اکبر, مکاریان, حسن. (1396). ارزیابی تحمل به خشکی در ژنوتیپ های مختلف گندم. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 30(4), 32-52. doi: 10.22092/aj.2018.108833.1102
الیاس نیستانی; مصطفی حیدری; علی اکبر عامری; حسن مکاریان. "ارزیابی تحمل به خشکی در ژنوتیپ های مختلف گندم". سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 30, 4, 1396, 32-52. doi: 10.22092/aj.2018.108833.1102
نیستانی, الیاس, حیدری, مصطفی, عامری, علی اکبر, مکاریان, حسن. (1396). 'ارزیابی تحمل به خشکی در ژنوتیپ های مختلف گندم', سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 30(4), pp. 32-52. doi: 10.22092/aj.2018.108833.1102
نیستانی, الیاس, حیدری, مصطفی, عامری, علی اکبر, مکاریان, حسن. ارزیابی تحمل به خشکی در ژنوتیپ های مختلف گندم. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 1396; 30(4): 32-52. doi: 10.22092/aj.2018.108833.1102

ارزیابی تحمل به خشکی در ژنوتیپ های مختلف گندم

پژوهش های کاربردی زراعی
مقاله 3، دوره 30، شماره 4 - شماره پیاپی 117، اسفند 1396، صفحه 32-52    اصل مقاله (725.51 K)
نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22092/aj.2018.108833.1102
نویسندگان
الیاس نیستانی* 1؛ مصطفی حیدری2؛ علی اکبر عامری3؛ حسن مکاریان2
1دانشجوی دکتری زراعت دانشگاه صتنعتی شاهرود
2عضو هیئت علمی دانشگاه صنعتی شاهرود
3عضو هیدت علمی مرکز تحقیقات و اموزش کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی خراسان شمالی
چکیده
این پژوهش در سال زراعی 95-1394 در دو مکان (ایستگاه تحقیقات کشاورزی دیم شیروان و ایستگاه تحقیقات کشاورزی سیساب بجنورد) در استان خراسان شمالی در قالب طرح بلوک‌های کامل تصادفی در چهار تکرار در دو شرایط دیم (تنش) و آبیاری تکمیلی به اجرا درآمد. بر اساس عملکرد دانه در شرایط تنش و بدون تنش، شاخص‌های: حساسیت به خشکی فیشر(SSI)، شاخص تحمل به خشکی فرناندز(STI) ، شاخص پایداری عملکرد(YSI)، شاخص میانگین بهره‌وری(MP)، شاخص میانگین هندسی عملکرد(GMP) و شاخص عملکرد(YI) محاسبه شدند. بر اساس تجزیه واریانس مرکب، اثر مکان برای اکثر صفات و عملکرد دانه معنی‌دار بود و ژنوتیپ‌ها از نظر عملکرد دانه دارای اختلاف معنی‌داری بودند. اثر متقابل ژنوتیپ مکان نیز برای اکثر صفات و صفت عملکرد دانه معنی‌دار بود. نتایج نشان داد، ژنوتیپ‌های 17 و 12 به ترتیب با 2780 و 2608 کیلوگرم در هکتار عملکرد دانه در شرایط بدون تنش و با 2263 و 2119 کیلوگرم در هکتار عملکرد دانه در شرایط تنش، نسبت به سایر ژنوتیپ‌ها برتر بودند. بر اساس ضرایب همبستگی محاسبه شده، شاخص‌ های تحمل به خشکی فرناندز، میانگین بهره‌وری و شاخص میانگین هندسی عملکرد، بیشترین همبستگی را با عملکرد دانه داشتند. ژنوتیپ‌های 17 و 12 از لحاظ تمام شاخص‌های محاسبه شده نسبت به سایر ژنوتیپ‌ها در هر دو محیط تنش و بدون تنش برتری داشتند و این دو ژنوتیپ با بالاترین عملکرد دانه، متحمل‌ترین ژنوتیپ به خشکی نسبت به سایر ژنوتیپ‌ها شناخته شدند.
کلیدواژه‌ها
تنش کم آبی؛ غلات؛ عملکرد دانه؛ دیم
عنوان مقاله [English]
Evaluation of drought tolerance in wheat genotypes
نویسندگان [English]
Elyas Neyestani1؛
چکیده [English]
Evaluation of drought tolerance in wheat genotypes
Introduction
Drought stress in arid and semiarid regions is the most crop production restricting factor. Reduction of crop productivity of these regions estimated over than 50% due to climate change and global warming at recent decades (Jaha et al., 2014). According to the Mediterranean precipitation pattern in most parts of Iran, near all rainfall happens in winter season and so drought stress usually occurs in flowering and physiological ripening stages of wheat. Understanding the response of these plants to different environmental stresses such as drought stress and other restricting factors is inevitable. Drought resistance is a quantitative trait which isn’t measurable directly. This problem appear in identification of resistant genotypes to drought stress. In order to discriminate resistant genotypes some indices were recommended based on the seed yield at normal and drought conditions. The best index is one which selected genotypes with high yields at both stressed and non-stressed conditions. Shafazadeh et al., (2004) recommended that MP, GMP and STI indices are suitable for detecting drought resistant and productive genotypes because they had significant and positive correlation with seed yield at both conditions after flowering stage.
Material and Methods
This investigation was conducted using 20 improved lines of rain-fed wheat genotypes at two places included Dry-land agricultural research station of Shirvan and Agricultural research station of Sisab, Bojnourd, Iran, in RCBD with 4 replications at two conditions included dry-land and complementary irrigation, during 2015-2016. After harvesting and measuring genotype’s yield in each condition, indices were calculated. Stress susceptibility index (SSI), Stress tolerance index (STI), Tolerance (Tol), Mean productivity (MP), Geometric mean productivity ( GMP), Sensitivity drought index (SDI), Relative drought index (RDI), Yield stability index (YSI), Yield index (YI), Relative water content (RWC) and Electrical conductivity (EC). Data analysis was done using Path, SAS and MSTAT-C software. Means comparisons were done using Duncan’s test and graphs were drown by Excel.
Results and Discussion
Based on the combined analysis of variances, the location effect was significant for all indices. This subject indicates that effect of location on grain yield of genotypes was different. The interaction effect of genotype × location wasn’t significant for grain yield at normal condition (Yp) but it was significant at stressed condition (Ys). These results showed that grain yield of the genotypes at normal condition for both places weren’t different but grain yield of genotypes at stressed condition were different in each place. In other word, dry land yield of genotypes was various at different places. Dry land yield of genotypes at Sisab station (Bojnourd) were higher than Shirvan station due to higher precipitation in Sisab. These results indicated that effect of genotype×environment is significant and these genotypes have enough variation (Mohammadi et al., 2015). These results showed that, genotypes No. 17 and 12 with 2780 and 2608 kg.ha-1 in non-stressed and 2263 and 2119 kg.ha-1 in stressed conditions respectively, were superior to the other genotypes.


Conclusion
In summary, genotypes No. 17 and 12 based on all investigated indices especially STI, GMP and MP indices were superior compared to other genotypes in both stressed and non-stressed conditions. Genotypes No. 17 and 12 had 2780 and 2608 kg.ha-1 grain yield at non-stressed condition and 2263 and 2119 kg.ha-1 grain yield at stressed condition, respectively. Therefore, these genotypes were selected among all genotypes as tolerant genotypes to drought stress. Heritability of grain yield trait at drought stress is reduced due to genotype to environment interaction. So, selecting genotypes with the lowest reduction of grain yield at end season drought stress condition would help improving grain production per unit area.
Keywords: Cereals, Dry land, Drought stress, Grain yield

Reference

Jha, U. C., Bohra, A. and Singh, N. P. 2014. Heat stress in crop plants: its nature, impacts and integrated breeding strategies to improve heat tolerance. Plant Breed. 133: 679-701.
Mohammadi, F. Mohammadi Nejad, G. h. And Nakhoda, B. 2015. Identification of drought stress tolerant lines in bread wheat. Environmental Stresses in Crop Sciences. 8: 249-258.
Shafazadeh, M. K., Yazdan-Sepas., A.A., Amini, A., Ghanadha, M.R., 2004. Study of terminal drought tolerance in promising winter and facultative wheat genotypes using stress susceptibility and tolerance indices. Seed Plant Improve. 20: 57-71.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
Cereals, Rain-fed, Drought Stress, Grain yield
مراجع

Anwar, J., Sobhani, G. M., Hussain, M., Ahmad. J., Hussain, M. and Munir, M. 2011. Drought tolerance indices and their correlation with yield in exotic wheat genotypes. Pakistan Journal of Botany. 43: 1527-1530.
Blum, A. 1983. Genetic adjustment and growth of barley genotypes under drought stress. Crop Science. 29: 230-233.
Blum, A. 1988. Plant breeding for stress environments. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL, USA. 223 pages.
Bouslama, M. and Schapaugh, W. T. 1984. Stress tolerance in soybean. I: Evaluation of three screening techniques for heat and drought tolerance. Crop Science, 24: 933- 937.
Castrillo, M. and Turujillo, I. 1994. Ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase activity and chlorophyll and protein contents in two cultivars of french bean plants under water stress and rewatering. Photosynthetica, 30(2): 175-181.
Cossani, C. M. and Reynolds, M. P. 2012. Physiological traits for improving heat tolerance in wheat. Plant Physiol. 160: 1710-1718.
Delmer, D. P. 2005. Agriculture in the developing world: connecting innovations in plant esearch to downstream applications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102:15739 –15746.
Ehdaie, B., Alloush, G. A. and Waines, J. G.. 2008. Genotypic variation in linear rate of grain growth and contribution of stem reserve to grain yield in wheat. Field Crops Research. 106: 34-43.
FAO, 2006. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Quarterly Bulletin of Statistics.Rome, Italy.
FAO, 2011. Statistics: FAOSTAT agriculture. From
Farooq. M. W. A., Kobayashi, N., Fujita, D. and Basra, S. M. 2009. Plant drought stress: effects, mechanisms and management. Agronomy for Sustainable Development. 29: 185-212.
Farshadfar, E. and Javadinia. J. 2011. Evaluation of Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes for drought tolerance. Seed and Plant Improvement Journal, 27 (4): 517–537.
Fernandez, G. C. 1992. Effective selection criteria for assessing plant stress tolerance. pp. 257-270. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Adaptation of Vegetables and other Food Crops in Temperature and Water Stress. Taiwan. 13-16 August.
Fischer, R.A. and Maurer, R. 1987. Drought resistance in spring wheat cultivar. I. Grain yield response. Australian Journal of Agriculture Research, 29:897-912.
Foulkes, M.J., Scott, R.K. and Bradley, S. 2007. The ability of wheat cultivars to withstand drought in UK conditions: formation of grain yield. Journal of Agriculture Science. 138: 153–169.
Gavuzzi, P., Rizza, F., Palumbo, M., Campaline, R. G., Ricciardi, G. L. and Borghi, B. 1997. Evaluation of field laboratory predictors of drought and heat tolerance in winter cereals. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 77: 523–531.
Hanson, A. D. and Hitz, W. D. 1982. Metabolic responses of mezophytes to plant water deficit. Annu. Review of Plant Physiol. 33: 163-203.
Hu. L., Wang, Z., Du, H. and Huang, B. 2009. Differential accumulation of dehydrins in response to water stress for hybrid and common Bermuda grass genotypes differing in drought tolerance. Journal of plant physiology. 167: 103-109.
Jha, U. C., Bohra, A. and Singh, N. P. 2014. Heat stress in crop plants: its nature, impacts and integrated breeding strategies to improve heat tolerance. Plant Breeding. 133: 679-701.
Kardavani, P., 1999. Arid Areas, University of Tehran Publication, Tehran. [In Persian].
Lawlor, D. W. 2002. Limitation to photosynthesis in water-stressed leaves: stomata vs. metabolism and the role of ATP. Annals of Botany. 89: 871-885.
Lawlor, D. W. and Cornic, G. 2002. Photosynthetic carbon assimilation and associated metabolism in relation to water deficits in higher plants. Plant, Cell and Environment, 25: 275-294.
Marti, J. and. Slafer, G. A. 2014. Bread and Durum wheat yield under a wide rang of environmental conditions. Field Crop Research. 156: 258-271.
Moghadam, A and Hadizadeh, M.H., 2001. Study on density stress in selection of drought tolerant varieties of corn (Zea mays L). Iranian Journal Crop Science. 2: 25-38. (In Persian with English summary).
Mohammadi, F. Mohammadi Nejad, G. h. and Nakhoda, B. 2015. Identification of drought stress tolerant lines in bread wheat. Environmental Stresses in Crop Sciences. 8: 249-258.
Nourmand-Moayyed, F., Rostami, M.A., Ghanadha, M.R., 2001. Evaluation of drought resistance indices in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Iranian Journal Agriculture. Science. 32: 795-805. [In Persian with English summary].
Ober, E.S., Bloa, L., Clark, M., Royal, C.J.A., Jaggard, A., Pidgeon, K.W. 2005. Evaluation of physiological traits as indirect selection criteria for drought tolerance in sugar beet. Field Crops Research. 91: 231-249.
Rajala, A, Hakala, K., Makela, P., Muurinen, S. and Peltonen-Sainio, P. 2009. Spring wheat response to timing of water deficit through sink and grain filling capacity. Field Crops Research.114: 263–271.
Ritchie, S. W., Nguyen, H. T. and Haloday, A. S. 1990. Leaf water content and gas exchange parameters of two wheat genotypes differing in drought resistance. Crop Science. 30:105-111.
Rossielle, A and Hamblin, A. J. 1981. Theoretical aspects of selection for stress and non-stress environment. Crop Science. 21, 1441- 1446.
Shafazadeh, M.K., Yazdan-Sepas, A.A., Amini, A., Ghanadha, M. R. 2004. Study of terminal drought tolerance in promising winter and facultative wheat genotypes using stress susceptibility and tolerance indices. Seed Plant Improve Journal. 20: 57-71.
Sio-Se Mardeh, A., Ahmadi, A., Poustini, K. and Mohammadi, V. 2006. Evaluation of drought resistance indices under various environmental conditions. Field Crop Research. 98: 222- 229.
Takeda, S. and Matsuoka, M. 2008. Genetic approaches to crop improvement: responding to environmental and population change. Nature. 9: 445-457.
Tauqeer, A. Y., Chen, T.X., Tian, L., Condon, A. G. and Hu, Y. G. 2013. Screening of Chinese bread wheat genotypes under two regimes by various drought tolerance indices. Australian Journal Crop science. 7: 2005-2013.
Vaezi. B., Bavei, V. and Shiran, B. 2010. Screening of barley genotypes for drought tolerance by agro-physiological traits in field condition. African Journal of Agricultural Research. 5: 881-892.
Van de Wouw, M., Van Hintum, T., Kik, C., Van Treuren, R., Visser, B., 2010. Genetic diversity trends in twentieth century crop cultivars: a meta-analysis. Theoretical and Applied. Genetics. 120: 1241–1252.
Wang, W., Vinocur, B. and Altman, A. 2003. Plant responses to drought, salinity and extreme temperatures: towards genetic engineering for stress tolerance. Journal of plant physiology. 218: 1- 14.

آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 755
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 686


counter
سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. طراحی و پیاده سازی از سیناوب