کارایی آنالیزهای آماری GGE بای‌پلات و AMMI در بررسی پایداری و سازگاری عملکرد لاین‌های گندم دوروم در مناطق مختلف

نوع مقاله: علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 موسسه تحقیقات کشاورزی دیم کشور، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، مراغه، ایران

2 موسسه تحقیقات کشاورزی دیم کشور، معاونت سرارود، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، سرارود، ایران

3 مرکز تحقیقات و آموزش کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی استان کردستان، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، سنندج، ایران

4 مرکز تحقیقات و آموزش کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی استان اردبیل، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، اردبیل، ایران

5 مرکز تحقیقات و آموزش کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی استان آذربایجان غربی، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، ارومیه، ایران

چکیده

برهمکنش ژنوتیپ × محیط در مورد عملکرد گندم دوروم باعث می‌شود که نتوان یک رقم اصلاح شده پرمحصول را برای مناطق مختلف توصیه کرد. لذا به­منظور بررسی پایداری و سازگاری عملکرد دانه لاین‌های گندم دوروم در مناطق مختلف دیم، تعداد 16 لاین پیشرفته دوروم به مدت سه سال زراعی (94-1391) در مناطق مراغه، کردستان، سرارود، اردبیل و ارومیه در قالب طرح بلوک‌های کامل تصادفی در 3 تکرار تحت شرایط دیم ارزیابی شدند. بر اساس نتایج تجزیه واریانس مرکب، بین محیط‌ها، ژنوتیپ‌ها و برهمکنش ژنوتیپ در محیط اختلاف آماری معنی‌داری مشاهده گردید. بر اساس نتایج GGE ‌بای‌پلات، محیط‌ها به سه گروه و ژنوتیپ‌ها به چهار گروه تفکیک شدند. ارزیابی پایداری ژنوتیپ‌ها با استفاده از آماره‌ پایداری امی (ASV) و GGE ‌بای‌پلات نشان داد که امکان انتخاب ژنوتیپ‌های پایدار و پرمحصول بین لاین‌های پیشرفته نسبت به ارقام شاهد وجود دارد و لاین‌هایی نظیر G-1252 و 61-130/414-44// در مناطق سردی مثل مراغه، قاملو و منطقه معتدل سرارود و لاین 10 در اردبیل می‌توانند منبع ژنتیکی مطلوبی برای معرفی ارقام دوروم متحمل به تنش‌های خشکی و سرما در دیمزارهای این مناطق باشند. در مجموع، طی سه سال، لاین61-130/414-44// به­طور میانگین 27 درصد عملکرد بیشتری نسبت به رقم شاهد (ساجی) داشت. انجام آبیاری در مراحل کشت و اوایل گرده‌افشانی توانست عملکرد عمومی لاین‌ها را 14 و 68 درصد به­ترتیب در مناطق مراغه و سرارود افزایش دهد که این افزایش برای لاین 61-130/414-44// در منطقه مراغه 17 درصد و در سرارود 37 درصد بودند. در نهایت، بر اساس نتایج GGE بای‌پلات و AMMI، امکان گزینش لاین‌های پیشرفته گندم دوروم با پایداری و عملکرد زیاد نسبت به شاهد (ساجی) وجود دارد. به­علاوه، نتایج AMMI و شاخص پایداری امی (ASV) در مقایسه با نتایج  GGE‌بای‌پلات نشان داد تمامی این شاخص‌ها از پتانسیل خوبی برای ارزیابی پایداری عملکرد ژنوتیپ‌ها برخوردار بودند و این در حالی است که نتایج GGE بای‌پلات در بررسی سازگاری و پایداری عملکرد ژنوتیپ‌ها در محیط‌های متفاوت بسیار کارآ و کاربردی‌تر بوده و می‌تواند به­صورت گسترده‌ای در بررسی لاین‌ها در مناطق و سال‌های متعدد در برنامه‌های اصلاح گندم دوروم و سایر غلات به­کار گرفته شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Efficiency of GGE Biplot and AMMI Analyses for Adaptability and Grain Yield Stability of Durum Wheat Lines under Different Environments

نویسندگان [English]

  • Behzad Sadeghzadeh 1
  • Reza Mohammadi 2
  • Hasan Ahmadi 3
  • Gholamreza Abedi-asl 4
  • Gholamreza Khalilzadeh 5
  • Mahnaz Mohammadfam 1
  • Nozar Bahrami 2
  • Hasan Ismaeilzad 1
  • Mohammad-Sharif Khaledian 3
  • Maghsoud Hasanpour-hosni 1
1 Dryland Agricultural Research Institute (DARI), Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Maragheh, Iran
2 Dryland Agricultural Research Institute (DARI), Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Sararood Branch, Iran
3 Kordestan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Sanandaj, Iran
4 Ardabil Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Ardabil, Iran
5 West Azarbaijan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Urmia, Iran
چکیده [English]

Genotype × environment interactions make it difficult to release high yielding durum varieties for diverse environmental conditions. The main purpose of this study was to achieve high yielding durum wheat genotypes with higher yield stability in different environmental conditions, tolerance to environmental stresses such as cold damage, terminal drought, and heat stresses. Hence, 16 durum wheat lines were evaluated for grain yield stability and morphological traits in Maragheh, Sararood, Qamloo, Ardabil and Urmia Agricultural Research Stations in 2012-15. In each location, the experiments were conducted in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Based on combined ANOVA, there were significant differences among the environments (E), genotypes (G) and G×E. GGE-biplot analysis showed that the 14 environments belonged to 3 mega-environments, and different genotypes had higher yield in each mega-environments. The AMMI and GGE results also confirmed that genotypes 2 (G-1252) and 3 (61-130/414-44//…) were the most high-yielding durum lines with reasonable yield stability across environments. Also, genotype 10 was the most adapted genotype to Ardabil. Line 61-130/414-44//… had 60, 11, 31, 10 and 17% more yield than check line (Saji) in Maragheh, Sararood, Qamloo, Ardabil and Urmia under rainfed conditions, respectively. Hence, these lines can be candiates to release as new durum varieties for cold and moderate rainfed areas. Complementary irrigation could increase grain yield up to 14 and 68% in Maragheh and Sararood, respectively. It can be concluded that finding new stable high-yielding durum lines, with better performances, as compared to the existed varieties, is a great progress in durum breeding programs in cold rainfed areas. Moreover, the GGE biplot and AMMI analysis had good performance in adaptability and yield stability analysis in durum genotypes and could be used to evaluate durum genotypes at different locations over the years in durum breeding programs.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Stability
  • Adaptability
  • Genotype × Environment
  • Durum
  • Cold rainfed
  • · Akar, T., and M. Ozgen. 2007. Genetic diversity in Turkish durum wheat landraces. Wheat Production in Stressed Environments, 753-760. Springer.
  • · Akcura, M., Y. Kaya, and S. Taner, 2005. Genotype-environment interaction and phenotypic stability analysis for grain yield of durum wheat in the Central Anatolian region. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry. 29: 369-375.
  • · Anonymus. 2011. Agricultural statisctic booklet. Misitry of Jihad-e-Agriculture. (In Persian).
  • · Benli, B., M. Pala, C. Stockle, and T. Oweis. 2007. Assessment of winter wheat production under early sowing with supplemental irrigation in a cold highland environment using CropSyst simulation model. Agricultural Water Management. 93: 45-53.
  • · Bilgin, O., K.Z. Korkut, I. Baser, O. Dağlıoğlu, I. Ozturk, and T. Kahraman. 2008. Determination of variability between grain yield and yield components of durum wheat varieties (Triticum durum Desf.) in Thrace region. Journal of Tekirdag Agricultural Faculty. 5: 101-109.
  • · Bray, E.A., J. Bailey-Serres, and E. Weretilnyk. 2000. Responses to abiotic stresses, In: W. Gruissem, B. Buchannan and R. Jones, (eds.) Biochemistry and Molecular Biology of Plants, 1158-1203. American Society of Plant Physiologists, Rockville, MD.
  • · Chen, T., G. Xu, Z. Wang, H. Zhang, J. Yang, and J. Zhang. 2015. Expression of proteins in superior and inferior spikelets of rice during grain filling under different irrigation regimes. Proteomics 16: 102-121.
  • · Davies, W., I. Dodd, and S. Wilkinson. 2013. Improving spike fertility by understanding and modifying its sensitivity to environmental cues, In: M. Reynolds and H. J. Braun, (eds.) International Workshop of the Wheat Yield Consortium, 5-7th March 2013, 36-38, CIMMIT, Mexico.
  • · Dogan, R. 2009. The correlation and path coefficient analysis for yield and some yield components of durum wheat (Triticum turgidum var. durum L.) in west Anatolia conditions. Pak. J. Bot. 41: 1081-1089.
  • · Fan, X.-M., M.S. Kang, H. Chen, Y. Zhang, J. Tan, and C. Xu. 2007. Yield stability of maize hybrids evaluated in multi-environment trials in Yunnan, China. Agronomy Journal. 99: 220-228.
  • · Garcia del Moral, L.F., Y. Rharrabti, D. Villegas, and C. Royo. 2003. Evaluation of grain yield and its components in durum wheat under Mediterranean conditions: An ontogenic approach. Agronomy Journal . 95: 266-274.
  • · Gauch, H.G. 1992. Statistical analysis of regional trials. AMMI Analysis of Factorial Designs Elsevier, New York, USA.
  • · Gauch, H.G. 2006. Statistical analysis of yield trials by AMMI and GGE. Crop Science. 46: 1488-1500.
  • · Gauch, H.G., and R.W. Zobel. 1996. AMMI analysis of yield trials, In: M. S. Kang and H. G. Gauch, (eds.) Genotype by environment interaction, 85-122. CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL.
  • · Hamdan, I., and S. Smets. 2013. Climate Change Impact on WANA: Key Researchable Issues and Proposed Measures, In: M. V. K. Sivakumar, R. Lal, R. Selvaraju and I. Hamdan, (eds.) Climate Change and Food Security in West Asia and North Africa, 147-159. Springer.
  • · Heidari-Sharifabad, H. 2008. Drought mitigation strategies for the agriculture sector The 10th Iranian Congress of Crop Sciences, 18-20. Karaj, Iran. (In Persian).
  • · Ilbeyi, A., H. Ustun, T. Oweis, M. Pala, and B. Benli. 2006. Wheat water productivity and yield in a cool highland environment: Effect of early sowing with supplemental irrigation. Agricultural Water Management. 82: 399-410.
  • · Innes, P., J. Hoogendoorn, and R.D. Blackwell. 1985. Effects of differences in date of ear emergence and height on yield of winter wheat. Journal of Agricultural Science. 105: 543-549.
  • · Li, Y.F., Y. Wu, N. Hernandez-Espinosa, and R.J. Peña. 2013. Heat and drought stress on durum wheat: Responses of genotypes, yield, and quality parameters. Journal of Cereal Science. 57: 398-404.
  • · Mikołajczak, K., A. Kuczyńska, P. Krajewski, A. Sawikowska, M. Surma, P. Ogrodowicz, T. Adamski, K. Krystkowiak, A.G. Górny, and M. Kempa. 2016. Quantitative trait loci for plant height in Maresi× CamB barley population and their associations with yield-related traits under different water regimes. Journal of Applied Genetics. 1-13.
  • · Mohammadi, R., R. Haghparast, B. Sadeghzadeh, H. Ahmadi, K. Solimani, and A. Amri. 2014. Adaptation patterns and yield stability of durum wheat landraces to highland cold rainfed areas of Iran. Crop Science. 54: 944-954.
  • · Nachit, M.M. 2002. Breeding for improved resistance to drought in durum wheat. ICARDA Caravan, ICARDA.
  • · Oweis, T., M. Pala, and J. Ryan. 1998. Stabilizing rainfed wheat yields with supplemental irrigation and nitrogen in a Mediterranean climate. Agronomy Journal. 90: 672-681.
  • · Pask, A., J. Pietragalla, D. Mullan, and M. Reynolds, 2012. Physiological breeding II: A Field Guide to Wheat Phenotyping CIMMYT.
  • · Purchase, J., H. Hatting, and C. Van Deventer. 2000. Genotype× environment interaction of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in South Africa: II. Stability analysis of yield performance. South African Journal of Plant and Soil. 17: 101-107.
  • · Rad, M.N., M.A. Kadir, M. Rafii, H.Z. Jaafar, M.R. Naghavi, and F. Ahmadi. 2013. Genotype environment interaction by AMMI and GGE biplot analysis in three consecutive generations of wheat (Triticum aestivum) under normal and drought stress conditions. Australian Journal of Crop Science. 7: 956.
  • · Richards, R.A., G.J. Rebetzke, R. Appels, and A.G. Condon. 1999. Physiological traits to improve the yield of rainfed wheat: can molecular genetics help?, In: J. M. Ribaut and D. Poland, (eds.) Molecular Approaches for Genetic Improvement of Cereals for Stable  Production in Water-limited Environments. CIMMYT, Mexico.
  • · Rose IV, L.W., M.K. Das, and C.M. Taliaferro. 2008. A comparison of dry matter yield stability assessment methods for small numbers of genotypes of bermudagrass. Euphytica. 164: 19-25.
  • · Royo, C., M. Abaza, R. Blanco, and L.F.G. del Moral. 2000. Triticale grain growth and morphometry as affected by drought stress, late sowing and simulated drought stress. Functional Plant Biology. 27: 1051-1059.
  • · Sadeghzadeh, B., G. Abedi-asl, and D. Sadeghzadeh-ahari, 2012. Evaluating agronomic traits related to grain yield of durum wheat landraces in drylands condition. Iranian Journal of Dryland Agricultural Science. 1: 40-62. (In Persian).
  • · Sadeghzadeh, B., R. Mohammadi, H. Ahmadi, G. Abediasl, and M.M. Ahmadi. 2015. Adaptability and grain yield stability of durum lines in uniform regional yield trials in moderate and cold drylands, Vol. 48761/94.11.27. Dryland Agricultural Research Institute (DARI), Maragheh, Iran. (In Persian).
  • · Sadeghzadeh, B., D. Sadeghzadeh-ahari, R. Maali-Amiri, and L. Najad-Sadeghi. 2013. Understanding of morpho-physiological variability on Iranian-durum wheat landraces under cold-rainfed conditions. Iranian Journal of Field Crop Science. 43: 633-648. (In Persian).
  • · Samonte, S.O.P., L.T. Wilson, A.M. McClung, and J.C. Medley. 2005. Targeting cultivars onto rice growing environments using AMMI and SREG GGE biplot analyses. Crop Science. 45: 2414-2424.
  • · Tavakkoli, A.R., and T.Y. Oweis. 2004. The role of supplemental irrigation and nitrogen in producing bread wheat in the highlands of Iran. Agricultural Water Management. 65: 225-236. (In Persian).
  • · Trethowan, R., and M. Reynolds. 2007. Drought resistance: genetic approaches for improving productivity under stress, In: R. M. Trethowan and M. Reynolds, (eds.) Wheat Production in Stressed Environments, 289-299. Springer Pub., The Netherlands.
  • · Yan, W. 2001. GGEbiplot - A Windows application for graphical analysis of multienvironment trial data and other types of two-way data. Agronomy Journal. 93: 1111-1118.
  • · Yan, W., 2002. Singular-value partitioning in biplot analysis of multienvironment trial data. Agronomy Journal. 94: 990-996.
  • · Yan, W., and M.S. Kang. 2003. GGE Biplot Analysis: A graphical tool for breeders, geneticists, and agronomists CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
  • · Yan, W., M.S. Kang, B. Ma, S. Woods, and P.L. Cornelius. 2007. GGE biplot vs. AMMI analysis of genotype-by-environment data. Crop Science. 47: 643-653.
  • · Zečević, V., D. Knežević, and D. Mićanović. 2004. Genetic correlations and path-coefficient analysis of yield and quality components in wheat, Triticum aestivum L. Genetika. 36: 13-21.