In order to determination of appropriate stability parameters, the flower yields of 35 Rosa damascena genotypes in eight regions of Iran (Kurdistan, Hamedan, Kerman, Fars, Khuzestan, Isfahan, Markazi, and Khorasan) were evaluated for two years (2007-2008) using randomized complete block design with three replications. Significant differences (P≤0.01) were observed for flower yield among genotypes (G), locations (L), environments (E), and also for genotype× location (GL) and genotype× environment (GE) interactions. The stable and adaptable genotypes with some static concepts of stability parameters such as environmental variance (S2) and regression coefficient (b ≈ 0) had low yield, but with environmental coefficient of variation (CVE) had high performance. The stable genotypes according to Eberhart and Russell model and the concept of stability dynamics (bi ≈ 1, ∑ Sdi2 ≈ 0, and high Ῡi) had moderate to high flower yields. According to the superiority index (P), high yielding genotypes were determined as compatible (stable in location). The stable genotypes with the lowest year by location (YL) variance had the lowest flowers yield. The flower yield was positively correlated with S2, b and MSY/L (p<0.01) and negatively correlated with superiority index (P) and CVE (p<0.01). Based on both flower yield and stability, it was found that genotypes of Yazd 2, Isfahan 5, Isfahan 8, Isfahan 4, and Khuzestan 1 had high flower yield, stability, and general adaptation over locations. The genotypes Isfahan 9 and Isfahan 7 had high flower yield, stability, and specific adaptation with semi-arid and arid areas and also the genotype of Isfahan7 had high flower yield, stability and specific adaptation with semi temperate and cold areas in Iran. It was concluded that a genotype can demonstrate both static and dynamic stability with a high flower yield at the same time. In addition, coefficient of variation (CV), statistics regression (b ≈ 1, Sd2≈ 0), and superiority index (P) suggested as desirable parameters to evaluate different aspects (static and dynamic) of flower yield in R. damascena.
|
- Ansari, N. and Yousefi, B., 2001. Investigation of the stability analysis of forage yields of Medicago sativa cultivars in Lorestan Province. Pazuhesh & Sazandagi, 14 (1): 64-67. (In Persian).
- Bajpai, P.K. and Prabhakaran,T., 2000.A new procedure of simultaneous selection for high yielding and stable crop genotypes. Indian Journal of Genetic, 60:141-146.
- Becker, H.C. and Leon, J., 1988. Stability analysis in plant breeding. Plant Breeding 101:1-23.
- Campbell, D.R., Evolution of floral traits in a hermpahorditic plant: Field measurments of heritabilities and genetic correlations. Evolution, 50: 1442–1453.
- Cornelius, P.L., 1993. Statistical tests and retention of terms in the additive main effects and multiplicative interaction model for cultivar trials. Crop Science, 33: 1186 - 1193.
- Crossa, J., 1990. Statistical analysis of multi-location trials. Advances in Agronomy, 44: 55-85.
- Crossa, J., Fox, P.N., Pfeiffer, W.H., Rajaram, S. and Gauch, H.G., AMMI adjustment for statistical analysis of an international wheat yield trial. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 81: 27-37.
- Eberhart, S.A. and Russell, W.A., 1966. Stability parameters for comparing varieties. Crop Science, 6: 36-40.
- Falkenhagen, E.R., 1996. A comparison of the AMMI method with some classical statisticalmethods in provenance research: A case of the South African Pinus radiata Forest Genetics, 3(2), 81- 87.
- Farshadfar, E. (1998). The application of quantitative genetics in plant breeding, Vol 2. Taq- Bostan Press, Kermanshah, Iran. 396p. (In Persian).
- Finlay, K.W.and Wilkinson, N., 1963. The analysis of adaptation in plant breeding programme. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 14:742-754.
- Francis, T.R. and Kannenberg, L.W. , 1973. Yield stability studies in short-season Maize. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 58:1028-1034.
- Freeman, G.H. and Perkins,M., 1971. Environmental and genotype-environment components of variability: VIII. Relations between genotypes grown in different environments and measures of these environments. Heredity 27: 15 - 23.
- Gauch, J.H.G., Model selection and validation for yield trials with interaction. Biometrics, 44: 705 - 715.
- Kang, M.S., 1993. Simultaneous selection for yield and stability in crop performance trials: Consequences for grower. Agronomy Journal, 85: 754-757.
- Kanzler, A., 2002. Genotype × Environment Interaction in Pinus patula and its Implications in South Africa . Faculty of North Carolina State University Department of Forestry, Raleigh, NC, 249 p.
- Kempton,A. and Fox, P.N., 1997. Statistical methods for plant variety evaluation, London, Chapman & Hall. p: 139-161.
- Lin, C., Burns, M.R. and Lefkovitch, L.P., 1986. Stability analysis: Where do we stand?.Crop Science, 26,894-900.
- Lin, C.S. and Binns, M.R., 1988. A superiority measure of landrace performance forlandrace x location data. Canadian Journal of Plant Sciences, 68,193-198.
- Moghadam, M., 1994. Advanced plant breeding (Course notes of undergraduate students in crop breeding). Faculty of Agriculture, Tabriz University. 120 p. (In Persian).
- Omokhafe,O., 2004. Interaction between flowering pattern and latex yield in Hevea brasiliensis Muell. Crop Breeding and Applied Biotechnology, 4:280-284.
- Paulo, S.G., Fujihara, A.F., Ortolant, A.A., Bataglia, O.C., Bortoletto, N. and Junior, L.S., 1999. Phenotypic stability and genetic gains in six-year girth growth of Hevea clones. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira, 34(7):1223-1232.
- Perkins, J.M. and Jinks, J.L., 1968. Environmental polypeptide pattern as indicator of salt tolerance inand genotype environmental components of some Brassica Proceeding of the 26thvariability III. Multiple lines and crosses. Heredity, Annual meeting of Genetics Alex., 29-30 Sept.23: 339-356.
- Pinthus, M.J., 1973. Estimate of genotypic value: A proposed method. Euphytica, 22: 121-123.
- Plaisted, R.L. and Peterson, L.C., 1959. A technique for evaluation the ability of selection for yield consistency in different locations or seasons. American Journal of Potato Research,36:381-385.
- Plaisted, R.L.,1960. A shorter method for evaluating the ability of selections to yield consistently over locations. American Journal of Potato Research, 37:166-172.
- Shukla,K.,1972. Some statistical aspect of genotype-environment components of variability. Heredity, 29: 237-245.
- Singh,K. and B.D. Chaudhary, 1977. Biometrical methods in quantitative genetic analysis. Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi, 288p.
- Tabaei Aghdaei, S.R. Farhangian, S. and Jafari, A.A., 2005. Yield components in genotypes of Damask rose (Rosa damascena ) Central regions of the country using path analysis. Iranian journal Specialized plants and ecology, 1: 45-54 (In Persian).
- Vogler, W.D., Perets, And Stephenson, A.G., 1999. Floral plasticity in an iteroparous plant : the interactive effects of genotype , environment and ontogeny in Campanula rapunculoides . American Journal of Botany, 86(4), 482–494.
- Wachira, F., Ng'etich, W., Omolo, J. and Mamati, G., 2002. Genotype × environment interactions for tea yields. Euphytica, 127(2):78-89.
- Wricke, G., 1962. Ǘber eine methode zur erffassung der ỡkologischen Streubreite in feldversuchen. Z. Pflanzenzuchtg. 47:92-96.
- Wright, J.W., 1973. Genotype-environment interaction in north central United States. Forest Science, 19: 113 - 123.
- Yousefi, B., Tabaei-Aghdaei, S.R., Darvish F. and Assareh, M.H., 2009. Flower yield performance and stability of various Rosa damascena Landraces under different ecological conditions. Scientia Horticulturae, 121: 333–339.
|
