The study of drought stress effects on yield and yield components of cotton using biplot analysis | ||
| پژوهش های پنبه ایران | ||
| Article 3, Volume 3, Issue 1 - Serial Number 5, June 2015, Pages 33-47 PDF (569.53 K) | ||
| Document Type: Research Paper | ||
| DOI: 10.22092/ijcr.2016.106074 | ||
| Authors | ||
| Ahmad Kamali* 1; Barat Ali Fakheri2; Mohammad Zabet3 | ||
| 1Former MSc. Student, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zabol | ||
| 2Associate Professor, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zabol | ||
| 3Assistant Professor,Faculty of Agriculture, University of Birjand | ||
| Abstract | ||
| In order to evaluate the effect of drought stress on yield and yield components of cottonand selection of the best cultivars, an experiment was conducted as complete randomized block design (RCBD) with three replications on 14 cotton cultivars at Agricultural Research farm of Technical and Vocational Training center, Nehbandan, Khorasanjonobi under normal irrigation and drought stress in 2012. The results of variance analysis showed that there was significant difference among cultivars for all traits under stress and non-stress conditions. The effects of drought stress was significant on day number to flowering, plant height, number of sympodial branches, cotton yield, number of boll per plant and lint percentage. The assessment of simple correlation coefficient showed that the yield was positively and significantly correlated number of bolls per plant, number of sympodial branch, plant height and lint percentage. The traits of plant height, number of sympodial branches, day number to flowering, lint percentage and number of bolls per plant can be considered as the best indices for yield improving. In analysis of biplots, traits of numbers of sympodial branches and bolls per plant were as distinguishing traits and cotton yield was as traits representative. Also cultivars of Varamin, Bakhtegan, Mehr and Sahel had more stable yield. Varamin cultivar was similar to ideal cultivar. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| Cotton; Drought tolerance; Biplot analysis; Cultivar | ||
| References | ||
|
1. Alishah, O., and Ahmadikhah, A. 2009. The effects of drought stress on improved cotton varieties in Golestan province of Iran. Int. J. Plant Production. 3(1): 17-25.
2. Alishah, O., Fahmideh, L., and Nasrollah Nejad, S. 2009. Genetic analysis of yield and some associated traits in upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) genotypes. J. Plant Production. 16(2): 67-85. (In Persian).
3. Anonymous. 2013. Statistics of agricultural crops. Centre for Information and Communication Technology publications, p: 49. Ministry of Jihad-e-Agriculture, Iran. (In Persian).
4. Baker, R.J. 1990. Crossover genotype-environmental interaction in spring wheat. pp. 42-51. In: M.S. Kang (Ed.), Genotype-by-environment interaction and plant breeding, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA.
5. Damavandi Kamali, S., Babaian Jelodar, N., and Alishah, O. 2009. Correlation and Path coefficient analysis of yield and some important agronomic traits in cotton genotypes. J. Agric. Sci. Natur. Resour. 16:2 (Special issue No: 2). 43-52. (In Persian).
6. DeTar, W.R., Phene, C.J., Clark, D.A., and Kerby, T.A. 1993. Comparison of water use and yields of Acala and Pima cottons for subsurface drip vs. furrow irrigation. 1993 Belt wide Cotton Conference: Cotton Engineering Systems, pp. 540-541.
7. Fathi Sadabadi, M., and Navvabi, F. 2008. Effect of drought stress on yield and its components in four cotton genotypes in Darab region. Iranian J. Crop Sci. 10(2): 110-124. (In Persian).
8. Gabriel, K.R. 1971. The biplot graphic display of matrices with application to principal component analysis. Biometrika. 58: 453-467.
9. Gauch, H.G. 2006. Statistical analysis of yield trials by AMMI and GGE. Crop Sci. 46: 1488-1500.
10. Gauch, H.G., and Zobel, R.W. 1996. AMMI analysis of yield trait in genotype by environment interaction, Kang, M.S., and Gauch, H.G., eds.), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL: 85-122.
11. Guinn, G., Dunlap, J.R., and Brummett, D.L. 1990. Influence of water deficits on the abscisic acid and indole-3-acetic acid contents of cotton flower buds and flowers. Plant Physiol. 93: 1117-1120.
12. Heitholt J.J. 1995. Cotton flowering and boll retention in different planting configurations and leaf shapes. Agron. J. 87: 994-998.
13. Jenkins, J.N., and Saha, S. 2001. Genetic improvement of cotton. Science Publishers, Inc. 344 pp.
14. Kamli, S., Alishah, O., and Babaian, N. 2009. The assessment of genotype x environment interaction effect on and non-parametric methods. J. Crop Production and Processing. 13(48): 41-51. (In Persian).
15. Kardavani, P. 2001. Drought and the ways to confront it in Iran, Tehran University Publications. pp: 5-23. (In Persian).
16. Kempton, R.A. 1984. The use of biplots in interpreting variety by environment interactions. J. Agric. Sci. 103: 123-135.
17. Mohammadifard, R.G., Zare, M., Bazrafshan, F., and Zadehbagheri, M. 2012. Evaluation of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) genotypes to drought stress. Int. J. Biosci. 4(12): 158-166.
18. Pettigrew, W.T. 2004. Moisture deficit effects on cotton lint yield, yield components and boll distribution. Agron. J. 96: 377-383.
19. Rabadia, V.S., Thaker, V.S., and Singh, Y.D. 1999. Relationship between water content and growth of seed and fibre of three cotton genotypes. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 183: 255-261.
20. Radulovich, R., and Hsiao, T.C. 1986. A descriptive model of cotton growth and reproductive response to water deficits. Agron. Abstracts. p: 121.
21. Rajo, R.K., Harry, F., and Mcking, J.M. 1997. Modeling temperature effects on cotton internode and leaf growth. Crop Sci. 37: 500-503.
22. Sing, P. 1998. Cotton breeding, Kalyani publishers, New Delhi. pp: 125-135.
23. Smith, C.W., and Cothren, J.T. 1999. Cotton: origin, history, technology, and production. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY. 850 pp.
24. Vafaeitabar, M.R., and Talat, F. 2008. Quantitative and qualitative traits of some promising cotton cultivar in Varamin region. J. Agri. Sci. 5(2): 245-256. (In Persian).
25. Yan, W., and Tinker, N.A. 2005. An integrated biplot analysis system for displaying, interpreting and exploring genotype environment interaction. Crop Sci. 45: 1004-1016.
26. Yan, W., Kang, M.S., Ma, B., Woods, S., and Cornelius, P.L. 2007. GGE biplot vs. AMMI analysis of genotype by environment data. Crop Sci. 47: 643-655.
27. Yazdani, S., Shahbazi, H., and Kavooci, M. 2009. Economic Analysis of cotton product in Khorasan province. An Iranian Econom. Analysis. J. Agric. Development. 41-2(4): 425-433.
| ||
|
Statistics Article View: 1,084 PDF Download: 534 |
||
Journal management system. designed by sinaweb