بررسی شاخص‌های تحمل به تنش خشکی در ارقام گندم نان با روش بوت استرپ

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد، گروه زراعت و اصلاح نباتات، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه لرستان، خرم آباد، ایران

2 استادیار، گروه زراعت و اصلاح نباتات،دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه لرستان، خرم آباد، ایران

3 دانشیار، گروه زراعت و اصلاح نباتات،دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه لرستان، خرم آباد، ایران

چکیده

شاخص‌های تحمل به تنش، از جمله پرکاربردترین روش‌های انتخاب ژنوتیپ‌های متحمل به تنش در بین محققین می باشند. در این تحقیق، یازده رقم گندم نان در قالب طرح بلوک‌های کامل تصادفیبا سه تکرار تحت دو شرایط بدون تنش و تنش خشکی در مزرعه تحقیقاتی دانشکده کشاورزی دانشگاه لرستان- خرم‌آباد، که دارای اقلیم گرم و خشک است، در سال زراعی 96-1395 مورد ارزیابی قرار گرفتند و سپس از شاخص­های مختلف تحمل به تنش برای بررسی تحمل رقم­های مورد مطالعه استفاده شد. همچنین، برای تشخیص بهترین شاخص از ضریب تبیین (مربع ضریب همبستگی، R2) بین شاخص‌ها با عملکرد دانه تحت دو شرایط بدون تنش و تنش خشکی استفاده و با روش بوت­استرپ، حدود اطمینان ضریب تبیین شاخص‌های مرتبط با عملکرد تحت شرایط بدون تنش و تنش خشکی برآورد شد. نتایج نشان داد که شاخص‌های تحمل به تنش تغییریافته تحت شرایط بدون تنش(K1STI)، میانگین هندسی بهره­وری(GMP) و متوسط بهره­وری (MP) شاخص‌های اختصاصی شرایط بدون تنش و شاخص‌های تحمل به تنش تغییر یافته تحت شرایط تنش (K2STI) و حساسیت به خشکی(DI) شاخص‌های اختصاصی برای شرایط تنش خشکی بودند. شاخص میانگین هارمونیک (HM) نیز همبستگی نسبتاً پایداری با عملکرد دانه تحت هر دو شرایط بدون تنش و تنش خشکی داشت. در نهایت، بر اساس تمامی شاخص‌های اختصاصی و عمومی، رقم آفتاب برترین رقم در هر دو شرایط بدون تنش و تنش خشکی بود و رقم پوگاری نیز به­عنوان متحمل‌ترین رقم برای شرایط تنش خشکی شناخته شد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Evaluating drought tolerance indices in bread wheat cultivars using bootstrap method

نویسندگان [English]

  • Khadijeh Doulati Pasham 1
  • OmidAli Akbarpour 2
  • Hamidreza Eisvand 3
1 M. Sc. Student, Dept. of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Faculty of Agriculture, Lorestan University, Khorramabad, Iran
2 Assist. Prof., Dept. of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Faculty of Agriculture, Lorestan University, Khorramabad, Iran
3 Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Faculty of Agriculture, Lorestan University, Khorramabad, Iran
چکیده [English]

The use of stress tolerance indexes is one of the most promising methods for selection of stress tolerant genotypes among researchers. In this research, 11 bread wheat cultivars were evaluated in a randomized complete block design with three replications under two non-stress and drought stress conditions at research field of Faculty of Agriculture, Lorestan University, Khorramabad, Iran, with warm and dry climate,in2016-2017 crop season, and different stress tolerance indices were used to evaluate drought tolerance of the studied cultivars. Also, coefficient of determination (R2, square of the correlation coefficient)between the indices and grain yield under two non-stress and drought stress conditions was usedto determine the best indices andR-square confidence intervals of the tolerance indices related to grain yield under non-stress and drought stress conditions were estimatedusing bootstrap method. The results showed that the modified stress tolerance index under non-stress conditions (K1STI), geometric mean productivity (GMP) and mean productivity(MP)were the specific indices for non-stress conditions andthe modified stress tolerance index under drought stress conditions(K2STI) and drought index (DI) were the specific indices for drought stress conditions. Harmonic mean(HM) index had also a relatively stable correlation with grain yield under both non-stress(Yp) and drought stress(Ys)conditions. Finally, according to all specific and general indices, Aftabwas the best cultivar under non-stress conditions and Pougari was identified as the most tolerant cultivar for drought stress conditions.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Coefficient of determination
  • Grain yield
  • Harmonic mean index
  • Tolerant varieties
 Ali, M. B. and El-Sadek, A. N. 2016. Evaluation of drought tolerance indices for wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under irrigated and rainfed conditions. Communications in Biometry and Crop Science11:77-89.##Blum, A. 1988. Plant breeding for stress environments. CRC Press, Florida. USA. 212 p.##Cameron, A.C. and Trivedi, P.K. 2009. Microeconomics using stata. Stata Press, College Station, Texas, USA.##Cassell, D. L. 2007. Don't be loopy: Re-sampling and simulation the SAS® way.Proceedings of the SAS Global Forum. April 16-19, 2007, Orlando, FL, USA.Paper 183.##Chen, G. and Zhu,J. 2003. Software for the classical quantitative genetics. Institute of Bioinformatics, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.##Chen, L., Cairns, A. J. G. and Kleinow, T. 2017. Small population bias and sampling effects in stochastic mortality modelling. European Actuarial Journal 7: 193-230.##Cramer, C. S., Wehner, T. C. and Donaghy, S. B. 1999. PATHSAS: a SAS computer program for path coefficient analysis of quantitative data. Journal of Heredity 90: 260-262.##Efron, B. and Tibshirani, R. 1998. An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman and Hall, Boca Raton, USA.##Farshadfar, F. and Sutka, J. 2002. Screening drought tolerance criteria in maize. Acta Agronomica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 50(4): 411-416.##Fernandez, G. C. J, Chen, H. and Miller, J. C. 1989. Adaptation and environmental sensitivity of mungbean genotypes evaluated in the international mungbean nursery. Euphytica 41:253-261.##Fernandez, G.C.J. 1992. Effective selection criteria for assessing plant stress tolerance. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Adaptation of Vegetable and Other Food Crops in Temperature and Water Stress. August 13-16, 1992, Taiwan.##Fischer, R.A. and Maurer, R. 1978. Drought resistance in spring wheat cultivars. I. Grain yield responses.Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 29: 897-912.##Good, P. I. 2006. Resampling methods.(3rd Ed.). Boston, Birkhauser, USA.##Guyon, I. and Elisseeff, A. 2003. An introduction to variable and feature selection. Journal of Machine Learning Research 3:1157-1182.##Hall, A. E. 1993. Is dehydration tolerance relevant to genotypic differences in leaf senescence and crop adaptation to dry environments? In: Close, T. J. and Bray, E. A. (Eds.), Plant responses to cellular dehydration during environmental stress. The American Society of Plant Pathologist. Rockville, Maryland. pp: 1-10.##Ismaili, A., Karami, F., Akbarpour, O. and Rezaeinejad, A. 2016. Estimation of genotypic correlation and heritability of apricot traits, using restricted maximum likelihood in repeated measures data. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 96:439-447.##Jolliffe, I. T. 1973. Discarding variables in a principal component analysis. II.Real data. Journal of the Royal Statistical SocietyC (Applied Statistics) 22: 21-31.##Kamrani, M., Farzi, A. and Ebadi, A. 2015. Evaluation of grain yield performance and tolerance to drought stress in wheat genotypes using drought tolerance indices. Cereal Research 5(3): 231-246. (In Persian with English Abstract).##Khayatnezhad, M., Hasanuzzaman, M. and Gholamin, R. 2011. Assessment of yield and yield components and drought tolerance at end-of season drought condition on corn hybrids (Zea mays L.). Australian Journal of Crop Science 5(12): 1493-1500.##Khodarahmpour, Z., Choukan, R.,Bihamta, M.R. and Majidi Hervan,E.2011. Determination of the best heat stress tolerance indices in maize (Zea mays L.) inbred lines and hybrids under Khuzestan province conditions. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology 13:111-121.##Kristin, A. S., Senra, R. R., Perez, F. I., Enriquez, B. C., Gallegos, J. A. A., Vallego, P. R., Wassimi, N. and Kelley, J. D. 1997. Improving common bean performance under drought stress. Crop Science 37: 43-50.##Moghaddam, A., Vollmann, J., Wanek, W., Ardakani, M.R., Raza, A., Pietsch, G. and Friedel, J. K. 2012. Suitability of drought tolerance indices for selecting alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) genotypes under organic farming in Austria. Crop Breeding 2:79-89.##Mohammadi, M., Karimizadeh, R. and Abdipour, M. 2011. Evaluation of drought tolerance in bread wheat genotypes under dryland and supplemental irrigation conditions. Australian Journal of Crop Science 5(4): 487-493.##Rajaie, M., Tahmasebi, S., Bidadi, M., Zare, K. and Sarfarazi, S. 2016. The effect of terminal drought stress on yield and yield components of wheat genotypes. Cereal Research 5(4): 341-352. (In Persian with English Abstract).##Rencher, A. C. 2003. Methods of multivariate analysis. John Wiley and Sons, USA.##Rosielle, A. A. and Hamblin, J. 1981. Theoretical aspects of selection for yield in stress and non- stress environment. Crop Science 21: 943-946.##Sadeghzade Ahari, D. 2006. Evaluation for tolerance to drought stress in dry land promising durum wheat genotypes. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences 8: 30-45. (In Persian with English Abstract).##Shafazadeh, M. K., Yazdansepas, A., Amini, A. and Ghannadha, M. R. 2004. Study of terminal drought tolerance in promising winter and facultative wheat genotypes using stress susceptibility and tolerance indices. Seed and Plant Improvement Journal 20: 57-71. (In Persian with English Abstract).##Sideridis G. D. and Simos P. 2010. What is the actual correlation between expressive and receptive measures of vocabulary? Approximating the sampling distribution of the correlation coefficient using the bootstrapping method. International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment 5: 117-133.##Yang, R.C. 2002. Likelihood-based analysis of genotype–environment interactions. Crop Science 42:1434-1440.##Yang, R.C., Crossa, J., Cornelius, P. L. and Burgueño, J. 2009. Biplot analysis of genotype × environment interaction: Proceed with caution. Crop Science 49: 1564-1576.##Zhu, J. and Weir, B. S. 1996. Mixed model approaches for diallel analysis based on a bio-model. Genetic Research, Cambridge 68: 233-240.