| تعداد نشریات | 282 |
| تعداد نشریات سازمان | 80 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 3,196 |
| تعداد مقالات | 35,423 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 52,248,527 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 91,780,645 |
ارزیابی شاخص های تحمل به خشکی و همبستگی بین آنها در لاین های چغندرقند | ||
| چغندرقند | ||
| مقاله 2، دوره 32، شماره 1، اردیبهشت 1395، صفحه 13-27 اصل مقاله (311.88 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: کامل علمی - پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22092/jsb.2016.106650 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| سعید صادقزاده حمایتی؛ پرویز فصاحت* | ||
| استادیار مؤسسه تحقیقات اصلاح و تهیه بذر چغندرقند، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| در بهار سال 1391، به منظور تعیین بهترین شاخصهای کمی تحمل به خشکی در ژنوتیپهای چغندرقند، آزمایشی بهصورت طرحکرتهای خرد شده در قالب بلوکهای کامل تصادفی در سه تکرار در ایستگاه تحقیقاتی مرحوم مطهری مؤسسه تحقیقات چغندرقند درکمالشهر کرجانجام گرفت. دو تیمار آبیاری شامل آبیاری نرمال پس از 90-80 میلیمتر و آبیاری با اعمال تنش پس از 270 میلیمتر تبخیر از تشتکتبخیر کلاس A در کرتهای اصلی و 36 ژنوتیپ چغندرقند در کرتهای فرعی قرار داده شدند. شاخصهای حساسیت به تنش (SSI)، میانگین هارمونیک (Harm)، تحمل (TOL)، بهرهوری متوسط (MP)، پایداری عملکرد (YSI)، واکنش نسبت به خشکی (DRI)، تحمل تنش (STI)، میانگین هندسی بهرهوری (GMP)، عملکرد (YI)، مقاومت به خشکی (DI)، تحمل به تنش تغییر یافته (MSTI)، میزان محصول محیط غیرتنش و تنش(SNPI)، تحمل به تنشهای غیر-زیستی (ATI)، درصد حساسیت به تنش (SSPI)، و کاهش نسبی عملکرد (RDY) تعیین گردیدند. بر پایه دستورالعمل فرناندز، هشت ژنوتیپ 3، 35، 32، 5، 34، 13، 26 و 36 جزو گروه A (عملکرد بالا در شرایط نرمال و تنش) قرار گرفتند. مقایسه 16 شاخص مختلف تحمل نیز نشان داد که هفت شاخص GMP، Harm و MSTI (بر مبنای K2STI)،SNPI، STI،YI و YS توانستند هشت ژنوتیپ متعلق به گروه A را بهدرستی تشخیص دهند. اگرچه، مطالعه ضرایب همبستگی بین شاخصهای تحمل و عملکرد شکرخام در شرایط نرمال و تنش حاکی از برتری شاخصهایSSPI،ATI، MP، TOL، GMP، STI، RDY، Harm،YI،SNPI و DI بود. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| بهره وری؛ چغندر قند؛ ژنوتیپ؛ شاخص های تحمل به خشکی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Evaluation of drought tolerance indices and their correlations in sugar beet lines | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Saeed Sadeghzadeh Hemayati؛ F. Fasahat | ||
| Assistant Professor of Sugar Beet Seed Institute (SBSI)- Agricultural Research Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Iran. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Current study aimed at determining the most reliable drought tolerant criteria for identification of sugar beet genotypes. A split plot design based on randomized complete block design with three replications was applied at Motahari Research Station, Karaj, Iran in 2012. Two irrigation treatments including normal irrigation after 80-90 mm and irrigation after 270 mm evaporation (stress condition) from class A evaporation pan were allocated to main plots and 36 sugar beet genotypes to sub-plots. Stress susceptibility index (SSI), harmonic mean (Harm), tolerance (TOL), mean productivity (MP), yield stability (YSI), drought response (DRI), stress tolerance (STI), geometric mean productivity (GMP), yield index (YI), drought resistance (DI), modified stress tolerance (MSTI), stress non-stress production (SNPI), abiotic tolerance index (ATI), stress susceptibility percentage (SSPI), relative decrease in yield (RDY) indices were estimated. According to the abovementioned criteria, genotypes 3, 35, 32, 5, 34, 13, 26, and 36 with high yield under both normal and stress conditions were ranked in group A. Comparison of the 16 indices showed that GMP, Harm, MSTI (based on K2STI), SNPI, STI, YI and YS indices could identify the group A genotypes accurately. However, the results of correlation coefficient between drought tolerance indices and raw sugar yield under normal and stress conditions showed the indices SSPI, ATI, MP, TOL, GMP, STI, RDY, Harm, YI, SNPI and DI as superior criteria. | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| drought tolerance indices, Efficiency, genotype, sugar beet | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Ahmadi M, Majidi Heravan E, Sadeghian SY, Mesbah M, Darvish MF. Drought tolerance variability in S1 pollinator lines developed from a sugar beet open population. Euphytica. 2011; 178: 339–349.
Bidinger FR, Mahalakshmi V, Rao GDP. Assessment of drought resistance in pearl millet, factors affecting yields under stress. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research. 1987; 38: 37-48.
Bloch D, Hoffmann C. Seasonal development of genotypic differences in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) and their interaction with water supply. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science. 2005; 191: 263–272.
Bloch D, Hoffmann CM, Marlander B. Impact of water supply on growth, photosynthesis, water use and carbon isotope discrimination of sugar beet in relation to genotypic variability. European Journal of Agronomy. 2006; 24: 218–225.
Bouslama M, Schapaugh WT. Stress tolerance in soybean. Part 1. Evaluation of three screening techniques for heat and drought tolerance. Crop Science. 1984; 24: 933-937.
Clarke JM, DePauw RM, Townley Smith, TF. Evaluation of methods for quantification of drought tolerance in wheat. Crop Science. 1992; 32: 423-428.
Farshadfar E, Sutka J. Screening drought tolerance criteria in maize. Acta Agronomica Hungarica. 2002; 50(4): 411–416.
Farshadfar E, Moradi Z, Elyasi P, Jamshidi B, Chaghakabodi R. Effective selection criteria for screening drought tolerant landraces of bread wheat (Triticumaestivum L.). Annals of Biological Research. 2012; 3(5): 2507-2516.
Fernandez GCJ. Effective selection criteria for assessing plant stress tolerance. Proceeding of a Symposium, 1992 Aug 13-18; Taiwan, 1992. p. 257-270.
Fischer RA, Maurer R. Drought resistance in spring wheat cultivars. I. Grain yield responses. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research.1978; 29: 897-912.
Gavuzzi P, Rizza F, Palumbo M, Campanile RG, Ricciardi GL, Borghi B. Evaluation of field and laboratory predictors of drought and heat tolerance in winter cereals. Canadian Journal of Plant Science.1997; 77: 523-531.
Guttieri MJ, Stark JC, Brien K, Souza E. Relative sensitivity of spring wheat grain yield and quality parameters to moisture deficit. Crop Science. 2001; 41: 327-335.
Hall AE. Is dehydration tolerance relevant to genotypic differences in leaf senescence and crop adaptation to dry environments?. In: Close TJ, Bray EA, editors. Plant Responses to cellular Dehydration during environmental stress, 1993; pp. 1-10.
Hesadi P, Fathollah Taleghani D, Shiranirad A, Daneshian J, Jaliliyan A. Selection for drought tolerance in sugar beet genotypes (Beta vulgaris L.). Biological Forum – An International Journal. 2015; 7(1): 1189-1204.
Hoffman CM, Huijbregts T, Swaaji NV, Jansen R. Impact of different environments in Europe on yield and quality of sugar beet genotypes. European Journal of Agronomy. 2011; 30: 17–26.
İlker E, Tatar Ö, AykutTonk F, Tosun M. Determination of tolerance level of some wheat genotypes to post-anthesis drought. Turkish Journal of Field Crops. 2011; 16(1): 59-63.
Jones PD, Lister DH, Jaggard KW, Pidgeon JD. Future climate change impact on the productivity of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Climate Change. 2003; 58: 93–108.
Kerr S. Variety interactions with sowing, soils and harvest. Brit Sugar Beet Review. 2000; 68: 18–22.
Lan J. Comparison of evaluating methods for agronomic drought resistance in crops. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Occidentalis Sinica. 1998; 7: 85–87.
Moosavi SS, YazdiSamadi B, Naghavi MR, Zali AA, Dashti H, Pourshahbazi A. Introduction of new indices to identify relative drought tolerance and resistance in wheat genotypes. Desert. 2008; 12: 165-178.
Ober ES, Luterbacher MC. Genotypic variation for drought tolerance in Beta vulgaris. Annals of Botany. 2002; 89: 917–924.
Ober E, Rajabi A. Abiotic stress in sugar beet. Sugar Tech. 2010; 12: 294–298.
Ober ES, Clark CJA, Le Bloa M, Royal A, Jaggard KW, Pidgeon JD. Assessing the genetic resources to improve drought tolerance in sugar beet: agronomic traits of diverse genotypes under droughted and irrigated conditions. Field Crops Research. 2004; 90: 213–234.
Ober ES, Le Bloa M, Clark CJA, Royal A, Jaggard KW, Pidgeon JD. Evaluation of physiological traits as indirect selection criteria for drought tolerance in sugar beet. Field Crops Research. 2005; 91: 231–249.
Pidgeon JD, Werker AR, Jaggard KW, Richter GM, Lister DH, Jones PD. Climatic impact on the productivity of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) in Europe 1961–1995. Agricultural and Forest Meteorologyis. 2001; 109: 27–37.
Pidgeon JD, Ober ES, Qi A, Clark CJA, Royal A, Jagard KW. Using multi-environment sugar beet variety trials to screen for drought tolerance. Field Crops Research. 2006; 95: 268–279.
Rajabi A, Griffiths H, Ober ES. Carbon isotope discrimination in sugar beet: stability across environments and potential surrogate measures. Field Crops Research. 2009; 112: 172–181.
Ramirez P, Kelly J. Traits related to drought resistance in common bean. Euphytica.1998; 99: 127-136.
Rosielle AA, Hamblin J. Theoretical aspects of selection for yield in stress and non-stress environments. Crop Science. 1981; 21: 943–946.
Sadeghian SY, Fazli H, Mohammadian R, Taleghani DF, Mesbah M. Genetic variation for drought stress in sugar beet. Journal of Sugar Beet Research. 2000; 37: 55–77. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 1,380 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 971 |
||