ارزیابی برهمکنش ژنوتیپ × محیط و پایداری عملکرد دانه لاین‌های مختلف گندم نان با استفاده از روش‌های ناپارامتری

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری، گروه اصلاح نباتات و بیوتکنولوژی، دانشکده تولید گیاهی، دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی گرگان، گرگان، ایران

2 دانشیار، گروه اصلاح نباتات و بیوتکنولوژی، دانشکده تولید گیاهی، دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی گرگان، گرگان، ایران

3 استادیار پژوهش، موسسه تحقیقات کشاورزی دیم کشور، مرکز تحقیقات و آموزش کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی استان کهگلویه و بویراحمد، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، گچساران، ایران

4 استادیار، گروه اصلاح نباتات و بیوتکنولوژی، دانشکده تولید گیاهی، دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی گرگان، گرگان، ایران

5 دانشیار، گروه اصلاح نباتات، دانشکده علوم زراعی، دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی ساری، ساری، ایران

6 استادیار پژوهش، بخش تحقیقات علوم زراعی و باغی، مرکز تحقیقات و آموزش کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی استان گلستان، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، گرگان، ایران

چکیده

کمبود آب مهم­ترین عامل محدود­ کننده تولیدات کشاورزی به­ویژه در مناطق خشک و نیمه­خشک محسوب می­شود. برهمکنش ژنوتیپ × محیط مسئله‌ای مهم در مطالعه صفات کمی است، زیرا ضمن کاهش پایداری عملکرد در محیط‌های مختلف، تفسیر آزمایش‌های ژنتیکی را دشوار و پیش‌بینی‌ها را با مشکل مواجه می‌سازد. به‌منظور تجزیه برهمکنش ژنوتیپ × محیط و تعیین پایداری عملکرد و سازگاری لاین­های گندم نان، 15 لاین جدید گندم نان به­همراه رقم آفتاب در قالب طرح بلوک‌های کامل تصادفی با سه تکرار در چهار ایستگاه‌ تحقیقاتی (گچساران، خرم‌آباد، مغان و گنبد) به­مدت سه سال زراعی (99-1396) مورد ارزیابی قرار گرفتند. نتایج تجزیه مرکب عملکرد دانه نشان داد که اثر محیط، لاین و برهمکنش لاین × محیط معنی‌دار بود. معنی‌دار بودن برهمکنش لاین × محیط، واکنش متفاوت لاین‌ها را در محیط‌های مختلف نشان داد و بنابراین امکان تجزیه پایداری لاین­ها وجود داشت. بر اساس میانگین رتبه همه آماره‌های ناپایداری مورد مطالعه، لاین­های G15، G1، G7 و G3 با کم­ترین مقادیر میانگین رتبه به‌عنوان پایدارترین و لاین­های G2، G6، G8 و G10 با بیش­ترین میانگین رتبه به‌عنوان ناپایدارترین لاین­ها شناسایی شدند. نتایج نشان داد که آماره‌های ناپارامتری Si(3)، Si(6)، NPi(2)، NPi(3)، NPi(4)، KR و Top رابطه معنی­دار با میانگین عملکرد دانه و مفهوم دینامیک پایداری داشتند. بنابراین، استفاده از این روش‌ها برای گزینش لاین‌های پایدار با عملکرد بالا در گندم نان مناسب می‌باشند. در مجموع، لاین G7 با میانگین عملکرد دانه و پایداری عمومی مناسب، لاین برتر این آزمایش بود که بعد از آزمایش­های تکمیلی می­تواند به­عنوان رقم جدید معرفی شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Evaluation of genotype × environment interaction and grain yield stability of different bread wheat genotypes using non-parametric methods

نویسندگان [English]

  • Sima Abyar 1
  • Saied Navabpour 2
  • Rahmatollah Karimizadeh 3
  • Ali Asghar Nasrollahnejad ghomi 4
  • Ghafar Kiani 5
  • Amir Gholizadeh 6
1 Ph. D. Student, Dept. of Plant Breeding and Biotechnology, Faculty of Plant Production, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran
2 Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Plant Breeding and Biotechnology, Faculty of Plant Production, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran
3 Research Assist. Prof., Dryland Agricultural Research Institute, Kohgiloyeh and Boyerahmad Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Gachsaran, Iran
4 Assist. Prof., Dept. of Plant Breeding and Biotechnology, Faculty of Plant Production, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran
5 Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Plant Breeding, Faculty of Crop Sciences, Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University, Sari, Iran
6 Research Assist. Prof., Dept. of Crop and Horticultural Science Research, Golestan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Gorgan, Iran
چکیده [English]

Water scarcity is the most essential limiting element of agricultural production, particulary in arid and semi-arid areas throughout the world. The line × environment interaction is a major challenge in the study of quantitative characters because it reduces yield stability in different environments and also it complicates the interpretation of genetic experiments and makes predictions difficult. In this regard to analysis of line × environment interaction and determine the yield stability of bread wheat genotypes, 15 new bread wheat lines along with Aftab cultivar were evaluated in a randomized complete block design with three replications in four experimental field stations (Gachsaran, Khoramabad, Moghan and Gonbad) during three cropping seasons. Results of combined analysis of variance indicated that the effects of environments, line and line × environment interaction were significant, suggesting that the lines responded differently in the studied environment conditions. So, there was the possibility of stability analysis. According to mean rank of nonparametric stability parameters, the lines G1, G3, G7 and G15 with the lowest value for mean rank were stable, whereas lines G2, G6, G8 and G10 with highest values were unstable. Also, the results indicated that the nonparametric statistics Si(3), Si(6), NPi(2), NPi(3), NPi(4), KR and Top were associated with mean seed yield and the dynamic concept of stability. Therefore, these methods were suitable for selecting stable and high yielding lines in bread wheat. Finally, G7 line with average grain yield and high general stability was the top line of this test, which after additional tests can be a candidate for a new cultivar to introduce.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Stability analysis
  • Ideal lines
  • Non-parametric statistics
  • Rainfed conditions

مراجع

Abdulahi, A., Mohammadi, R. and Pourdad, S. S. 2007. Evaluation of safflower (Carthamus spp.) genotypes in multi-environment trials by nonparametric methods. Asian Journal of Plant Sciences 6 (5): 827-832.##Akbarpour, O. A., Dehghani, H., Sorkheh Lalelu, B. and Kang, M. S. 2016. A SAS macro for computing statistical tests for two-way table and stability indices of nonparametric method from genotype-by-environment interaction. Acta Scientiarum Agronomy 38 (1): 35-50.##Akcura, M. and Kaya, Y. 2008. Nonparametric stability methods for interpreting G × E interaction of bread wheat genotypes (Triticum aestivum L.). Genetic and Molecular Biology 31 (4): 906-913.##Alizadeh, B., Rezaizad, A., Yazdandoost Hamedani, M., Shiresmaeili, G. H., Nasserghadimi, F., Khademhamzeh, H. R. and Gholizadeh, A. 2020. Evaluation of seed yield stability of winter rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) genotypes using non-parametric methods. Journal of Crop Breeding 12 (35): 202-212. (In Persian with English Abstract).##Alizadeh, B., Rezaizad, A., Yazdandoost Hamedani, M., Shiresmaeili, G. H., Nasserghadimi, F., Khademhamzeh H. R. and Gholizadeh, A. 2021. Analysis of genotype × environment interaction for seed yield in winter rapeseed cultivars and lines using multivariate method of additive main effects and multiplicative interaction. Journal of Crop Production and Processing 11 (1): 95-108. (In Persian with English Abstract).##Becker, H. 1981. Correlations among some statistical measures of phenotypic stability. Euphytica 30: 835-840.##Bredenkamp, J. 1974. Nonparametriche prufung von wechsew-irkungen. Psychology Beitrage 16: 398-416.##de Kroon, J. and Van Der Laan, P. 1981. Distribution free test procedures in two-way layouts: A concept of rank interaction. Statatistica Neerlandica 35: 189-213.##Ebadi Segherloo, A., Sabaghpour, S. H., Dehghani, H. and Kamrani, M. 2008. Non-parametric measures of phenotypic stability in chickpea genotypes (Cicer arietinum L.). Euphytica 162: 221-229.##Eberhart, S. A. and Russell, W. A.  1966. Stability parameters for comparing varieties. Crop Science 6: 36-40.##Esmaeilzadeh Moghaddam, M., Tahmasebi, S., Lotfali Ayeneh, G. A., Akbari Moghaddam, H., Mahmoudi, K., Sayyahfar, M., Tabib Ghaffari, S. M. and Zali, H. 2018. Yield stability evaluation of bread wheat promising lines using multivariate methods. Cereal Research 8 (3): 333-344. (In Persian with English Abstract).##FAO. 2019. FAOSTAT. http://faostat3.fao.org/download/Q/QC/E.##Farshadfar, E., Sabaghpour, S. H. and Zali, H. 2012. Comparison of parametric and non‐parametric stability statistics for selecting stable chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes under diverse environments. Australian Journal of Crop Science 6: 514‐524.##Finlay, K. W. and Wilkinson, G. N.  1963. The analysis of adaptation in a plant breeding program. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 14: 742-754.##Fox, P. N., Skovmand, B., Thompson, B. K. and Braun, H. J. 1990. Yield and adaptation of hexaploid spring triticale. Euphytica 47 (1): 57-64.##Francis, T. R. and Kannenberg, L. W.  1978. Yield stability studies in short-season maize. I. A descriptive method for grouping genotypes. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 58: 1029-1034.##Hildebrand, H. 1980. Asymptotosch verteilungsfreie rangtests in linearen modellen. Medical Informatics Statistics 17: 344-349.##Huhn, M. 1979. Beitrage zur erfassung der phanotypischen stabilitat. I. Vorschlag einiger auf Rang informationnen beruhenden stabilitats parameter. EDV in Medizin und Biologie 10: 112-117. (In German with English Abstract).##Huhn, M. and Leon, J. 1995. Nonparametric analysis of cultivar performance trials: experimental results and comparison of different procedures based on ranks. Agronomy Journal 87: 627-632.##Jahromi, M. A., Khodarahmi, M., Mohammadi, A. R. and Mohammadi, A. 2011. Stability analysis for grain yield of promising durum wheat genotypes in southern warm and dry agro-climatic zone of Iran. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences 13: 565-579. (In Persian with English Abstract).##Jafari, T. and Farshadfar, E. 2018. Stability analysis of bread wheat genotypes (Triticum aestivum L.) by GGE Biplot. Cereal Research 8: 199-208. (In Persian with English Abstract).##Jockovic, M., Cvejic, S., Jocic, S., Marjanovic-Jeromela, A., Miladlnovic, D., Jockovic, B., Miklic, V. and Radic, V. 2016. Evaluation of sunflower hybrids in multi-environment trial (MET). Turkish Journal of Field Crops 24: 202-210.##Kang, M. 1988. A rank-sum method for selecting high-yielding, stable corn genotypes. Cereal Research Communication 16: 113-115.##Karimizadeh, R., Safikhani Nasimi, M., Mohammadi, M., Seyyedi, F., Mahmoodi, A. and Rostami, B. 2008. Determining rank and stability of lentil genotypes in rainfed condition by nonparametric statistics. JWSS-Isfahan University of Technology 12: 93-102. (In Persian with English Abstract).##Karimizadeh, R., Mohammadi, M., Sabaghnia, N., Shefazadeh, M. K., Hosseinpour, T. and Armion, M. 2013. Exploring of genotype by environment interaction by nonparametric stability procedures. Natura Montegrina 12 (1): 181-203.##Karimizadeh, R., Asghari, A., Sofalian, O., Shahbazi, K., Hosseinpour, T., Ghojogh. H. and Armion, M. 2019. Identification of the most stable durum wheat genotypes using nonparametric yield stability statistics. Journal of Crop Production and Processing 9 (1): 189-203. (In Persian with English Abstract).##Kaya, Y. and Taner, S. 2003. Estimating genotypic ranks by nonparametric stability analysis in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Journal of Central European Agriculture 4: 47-53.##Kaya, Y. and Turkoz, M. 2016. Evaluation of genotype by environment interaction for grain yield in durum wheat using non-parametric stability statistics. Turkish Journal of Field Crops 21 (1): 51-59.##Khalili, M. and Pour-Aboghadareh, A. 2016. Parametric and non-parametric measures for evaluating yield stability and adaptability in barley doubled haploid lines. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology 18 (3): 789-803.##Kilic, H., Akcura, M. and Aktas, H. 2010. Assessment of parametric and non-parametric methods for selecting stable and adapted durum wheat genotypes in multi-environments. Notulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici Cluj-Napoca 38 (3): 271-279.##Kubinger, K. D. 1986. A note on non-parametric tests for the interaction on two-way layouts. Biometrical Journal 28: 67-72.##Minitab. 2005.‎ Minitab‎ user’s‎ guide, ver.‎ 14.‎ Minitab‎ Inc,‎ Harrisburg. Pennsylvania. USA.##Moghaddam, M. J. and Pourdad, S. 2009. Comparison of parametric and nonparametric methods for analyzing genotype × environment interactions in safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.). Journal of Agricultural Science Cambridge 147: 601-612.##Moghaddaszadeh, M., Asghari Zakaria, R., Hassanpanah, D. and Zare, N. 2019. Nonparametric stability analysis of tuber yield in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) genotype. Journal of Crop Breeding 28: 50-63. (In Persian with English Abstract).##Mohammadi, R., Abdullahi, A., Haghparast, R., Aghaee, M. and Rostaii, M. 2007. Nonparametric methods for evaluating of winter wheat genotypes in multi-environment trials. World Journal of Agricultural Sciences 3 (2): 137-242.##Mohammadi, R., Haghparast, R., Amri, A. and Ceccarelli, S. 2009. Yield stability of rainfed durum wheat and GGE biplot analysis of multi-environment trials. Crop and Pasture Science 6: 92-101.##Mortazavian, S. M. and Azizinia, S. 2014. Nonparametric stability analysis in multi-environment trial of canola. Turkish Journal of Field Crops 19: 108-117.##Movahhedi, Z., Dehghani, H. and Mofidian, M. 2010. A study of yield stability in cold region ecotypes of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) through non-parametric measures. Iranian Journal of Field Crop Science 40: 103-111. (In Persian with English Abstract).##Najafi Mirak, T., Moayedi, A. A., Sasani, Sh. and Ghandi, A. 2019. Evaluation of adaptation and grain yield stability of durum wheat (Triticum turgidum L.) genotypes in temperate agro-climate zone of Iran. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences 21: 127-138. (In Persian with English Abstract).##Nassar, R. and Huhn, M. 1987. Studies on estimation of phenotypic stability: Tests of significance for nonparametric measures of phenotypic stability. Biometrics 43: 45-53.##Noruzi, E. and Ebadi, A. 2015. Comparison of parametric and non-parametric methods for analyzing genotype × environment interactions in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) inbred lines. Jordan Journal of Agricultural Sciences 11 (4): 959-979.##Pourdad, S., Jamshid Moghaddam, M., Faraji, A. and Naraki, H. 2014. Study on different nonparametric stability methods on seed yield of spring rapeseed varieties and hybrids. Iranian Journal of Field Crop Science 44: 539-548. (In Persian with English Abstract).##Sabaghnia, N., Dehghani, H. and Sabaghpour, S. H. 2006. Nonparametric methods for interpreting genotype× environment interaction of lentil genotypes. Crop Science 46: 1100-1106.##Safavi, S. and Bahraminejad, S. 2017. The evaluation of genotype × environment interactions for grain yield of oat genotypes using AMMI model. Journal of Crop Breeding 922: 125-132. (In Persian with English Abstract).##SAS. 2011. Statistical analysis system. SAS 9.1 procedures guide. SAS Institute Inc, Cary.##Shiri, M. R. and Bahrampour, T. 2015. Genotype × environment interaction analysis using GGE biplot in grain maize (Zea mays L.) hybrids under different irrigation conditions. Cereal Research 5: 83-94. (In Persian with English Abstract).##Shukla, G. 1972. Some statistical aspects of partitioning genotype environmental components of variability. Heredity 29: 237-245.##SPSS. 2010. SPSS 20 users guied. Chicago. USA.##Temesgen, T., Keneni, G., Sefera, T. and Jarso, M. 2015. Yield stability and relationships among stability parameters in faba bean (Vicia faba L.) genotypes. The Crop Journal 3: 258-268.##Thennarasu, K. 1995. On certain non–parametric procedures for studying genotype-environment interactions and yield stability. Ph. D. Dissertation. PJ School IARI, New Delhi, India.##Vaezi, B., Pour-Aboughadareh, A., Mohammadi, R., Armion, M., Mehraban, A., Hosseinpour, T. and Dorii, M. 2017. GGE biplot and AMMI analysis of barley yield performance in Iran. Cereal Research Communications 45: 500-511.##Vaezi, B., Pour-Aboughadareh, A., Mohammadi, R., Mehraban, A., Hossein-Pour, T., Koohkan, S., Ghasemi, E., Moradkhani, H. and Siddique, K. H. 2019. Integrating different stability models to investigate genotype × environment interactions and identify stable and high-yielding barley genotypes. Euphytica 215: 1-18.##Wrick, G. 1962. Uber eine methode zur erfassung der okologischen streubreite in feld versuchen. Zeits Chrift Fur Pflanzenzuechtung 47: 92-96. (In German with English Abstract).##Yan, W. and Rajcan, I. 2002. Biplot analysis of sites and trait relations of soybean in Ontario. Crop Science 42: 11-20.##Yan, W. and Kang, M. S. 2003. GGE biplot analysis: A graphical tool for breeders, geneticists and agronomists. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.##Zali, H., Farshadfar, E. and Sabaghpour, S. H. 2011. Genetic variability and interrelationships among agronomic traits in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes. Crop Breeding Journal 1: 127-132. (In Persian with English Abstract).##Zarei, L., Farshadfar, E., Haghparast, R., Rajabi, R., Mohammadi Sarab Badieh, M. and Zali, H. 2012. Comparison of different methods of stability evaluation in bread wheat genotypes under drought stress conditions. Electronic Journal of Crop Breeding 5 (3): 81-97. (In Persian with English Abstract).##
تحقیقات غلات
دوره 11، شماره 2
شهریور 1400
صفحه 89-104

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار