بررسی سازگاری و پایداری عملکرد رقم‌ها و رگه‌های سویا در چهار منطقه ایران

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی سابق کارشناسی ارشد اصلاح نباتات دانشکدة کشاورزی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد کرج

2 استاد، دانشکدة علوم و مهندسی کشاورزی، پردیس کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی دانشگاه تهران، کرج

3 استادیار پژوهش، مؤسسة ‌تحقیقات اصلاح و تهیة ‌نهال و بذر

چکیده

به منظور بررسی سازگاری و پایداری عملکرد 20 ژنوتیپ سویا در چهار منطقه (کرج، گرگان، خرم‌آباد و دشت مغان) پژوهشی به صورت طرح بلوک کامل تصادفی در چهار تکرار اجرا شد. صفات اندازه‌گیری‌شده شامل شمار روز از جوانه­زنی تا گلدهی، تشکیل غلاف، پر شدن کامل دانه و رسیدن کامل دانه، ارتفاع بوته (سانتی‌متر)، شمار گره در ساقه، عملکرد دانه در هر بوته (گرم)، وزن صددانه (گرم)، شمار شاخة فرعی، شمار غلاف در بوته، عملکرد (کیلوگرم در هکتار) بودند. ژنوتیپ‌ها 46/13درصد و محیط 02/56درصد از مجموع مربعات کل را به خود اختصاص دادند، درحالی‌که اثر متقابل ژنوتیپ× محیط 52/30درصد از تغییرپذیری‌های کل را به خود اختصاص داد که حدود 5/2 برابر میزان تغییرپذیری‌های اثر ژنوتیپ بود و این گویای تفاوت‌های اساسی در پاسخ ژنوتیپی در چهار محیط می­باشد. معنی‌دار شدن محیط و ژنوتیپ‌ها در سطح احتمال 1 درصد نشان از  وجود اختلاف بین ژنوتیپ‌ها در میانگین همة محیط‌های آزمایش داشت. به منظور تجزیة اثر متقابل ژنوتیپ× محیط با استفاده از مدل AMMI، تجزیه به مؤلفه‌های اصلی روی ماتریس باقی‌مانده صورت گرفت که مؤلفه‌های اصلی اول و دوم در سطح احتمال 1 درصد معنی‌دار شدند. مؤلفة اصلی اول IPCA1 (56/56) درصد و مؤلفة اصلی دوم IPCA2 (11/31) درصد از مجموع مربعات اثر متقابل را به خود اختصاص دادند که این دو مؤلفه در مجموع 67/87درصد از مجموع مربعات اثر متقابل را توجیه کردند. کمترین میزان عملکرد دانه مربوط به گرگان بود. بر پایة مشخصة (پارامتر) ارزش پایداری (ASV) AMMI  می‌توان ژنوتیپ‌های 5، 15، 18 و 13 را به ترتیب با عملکردهای 60/2676، 19/2545، 94/2610 و 44/2575 کیلوگرم در هکتار به عنوان بهترین ژنوتیپ‌ها معرفی کرد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Study the adaptability and yield sustainability of soybean genotypes in four regions of Iran

نویسندگان [English]

  • Simin Soltan Mohamadi 1
  • Seyed Ali Peyghambri 2
  • Hamidreza Babaei 3
1 Former M. Sc. Student, Faculty of Agriculture, Islamic Azad University, Karaj Branch, Iran
2 Professor, University College of Agriculture & Natural Resources, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran
3 Assistant Professor of Research, Seed & Plant Improvement Institute, Karaj, Iran
چکیده [English]

The sustainability performance of 20 soybean genotypes, in four regions of Iran (Karaj, Gorgan, Khorramabad and Moghan) assessed in a randomized complete block design with four replications. The measured traits included the number of days from sowing to flowering, pod formation, filling and full grain maturity, plant height (cm), node numbers on stems, seed yield per plant (g), 100 grain weight (g), number of branches, number of pods as well as seed yield (kg per ha). Results revealed that the genotypes described 13.46% and the environment defined 56.02% of the total sum squares, while genotype × environment accounted for 30.52% of the variability that was about 2.5 times of the amount caused by genotype changes. This showed the fundamental differences among the genotypes in response to environment. Environment and genotype significant differences revealed the genotypes variances throughout the environment test. In order to analyze the interaction of genotype × environment using AMMI, the principal component analysis was performed on the remaining matrix, in which the first and second main components were significant at 1% level. The first main component (IPCA1) allocated 56.56% and the second component (IPCA2) assigned 31.11% of the sum of squares of the interaction, that make up a total of 87.67% of the sum of squares of mutual explained. The lowest soybean yield was related to Gorgan region, and the stability parameter value (AMMI1) was belonged to genotypes 5, 15, 18 and 13 with 2676.6, 2545.2, 2610.924, 2575.4 seed yield Kg ha-1, respectively and these genotypes announced as the best ones.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Adaptability and yield sustainability
  • AMMI model
  • genotype environment
  • Principal component analysis
  • soybean
Abd Mishani, S. & Shah Nejat Boushehri, E. A. (2008).  Additionalplant breeding. First volume. Tehran University Press. Page 320.
Amarantath, K.C. & Viswantaha, S.R. (1990). Path coefficient analysis for some quantitative characters in soybean. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 24(3), 312-315.   
Amini far, J., Mohsen Abadi, Gh., Bigluee, M. & Samizadeh, H. (2013). The effect of irrigation on yield, yield components and water productivity of soybean genotypes T.215. Type text or a website address or translate a document.
Showing translation for 1. اهدایی. ب. 1386. اصلاح نباتات. .590 صفحه.
Translate instead 1. اهدائی. ب. 1386. اصلاح نباتات. .590 صفحه.
Journal of Irrigation and Water Engineering, third year. No. 11.
Abayomi, A.Y. (2008). Comparative growth and grain yield response of early and late soybean maturity groups to induced soil moisture stress at different growth stage, Word J of Agric Sci, 4(1), 71-78.
Babaee, H. R. (2013). Evaluation and identification ofsoybeangenotypesin thecollection. The approved research project. Department of oilseeds. Plant and seed Improvement Institute.
Babaee, H. R., Alam Khomram, M. H., Raeesi, S., Khaazaee, E., Eshghi, A. & Mohamadi, A. (2006).  Soybean yield stability analysis of the product lines. The 9th Congress of Agriculture and Plant Breeding. College of Agriculture Rayhan.
Babaee, H. R., Zeinali Khanghah, H. & Taremi, E. R. (2010).  Genetic analysis of agronomic traits and seed shattering in soybean (Glycine max L.). Seed and PlantJournal, 28(4).
Bekaee, E. S., Babaee, H. R., Habibi, D., Javidfar, F. & Mohamadi, E. (2008).  Evaluation of different soybean genotypes under drought stress. JournalofAgriculture and Plant Breeding, 4(1), 27-38.
Bokaei, A. S., Babaee, H. R., Habibi, D., Javidfar, F. & Mohammadi, A. (2008). Path analysis    for grain yield in soybean under different irrigaton conditions. In:Procceding of the 10th Iranian Congress of Crop Science 18-20 Aug. 2008. Karaj. Iran. (in Farsi)
Desclaux, D. & Roumet, P. (1996). Impact of drought stress on the phenology of two soybean   (Glycine max L. Merr) cultivars. Field Crops Research, 46, 61-70.       
Desclaux, D., Huynh, T. & Roumet, P. (2000). Identification of soybean plant characteristics that indicate the timing of drought stress. Crop Science, 40, 716-722.
Dennis, B. E. & Bruening, W. P. (2000). Potential of early maturing soybean cultivars in late plantings, Agronomy Journal, 92, 532-537.
Desclaux, D. & Roumet, P. (1996). Impact of drought stress on the phenology of two soybean (Glycine max L. Merr) cultivars. Field Crops Research, 46, 61-70.
Desclaux, D., Huynh, T. & Roumet, P. (2000). Identification of soybean plant characteristics that indicate the timing of drought stress. Crop Science, 40, 716-722.
Dennis, B. E. & Bruening, W. P. (2000). Potential of early maturing soybean cultivars in late plantings, Agronomy Journal, 92, 532-537
Dogan, E., Kirnak, H. & Copur, O. (2007). Deficit irrigations during soybean reproductive stages and CROPGRO-soybean simulations under semi-arid climatic condition, Field Crop Res, 103, 154-159.
Ehdaee, B. (2007). Plant Breeding. First edition. Tehran University Press. Page 590.
Farshadfar, E. (1998). The application ofquantitative geneticsin plant breeding. Volume II, Razi University Press. Page 258.
Fehr, W. R. & Caviness, C. E. (1977). Stages of soybean development. Cooperative Extension Service, Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.
Frederick, J. R., Camp, C. R. & Bauer, J. B. (2001). Drought stress effects on branch and main stem seed yield and yield components of determinate soybean. Crop Sci, 41, 759-763
Fehr, W. R., Caviness, C. F., Burmood, D. T. & Pennington, J. S. (1971). Stage of development descriptions for soybeans, Glycine max (L.) Merrill. Crop Sci, 11, 929-931.
FAOSTAT: Production, Crops, Cassava. (2014). data". Food and Agriculture Organization.
FAOSTAT: Production, Crops, Cassava. (2010). data". Food and Agriculture Organization.
Goupta, C. & Koomar, G. (2003). Oxygen processing in photosynthesis: regulation and signaling, New Phytol, 146(2), 359-388.
Goupta, C. & Koomar, G. (2003). Oxygen processing in photosynthesis: regulation and signaling, New Phytol, 146(2), 359-388.
Hossain, M. M., Xueyi, L., Xusheng, Q., Hon-Ming, L. & Jianhua, Z. (2014). Differences between soybean genotypes in physiological response to sequential soil drying and rewetting, The Crop Journal, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cj.2014.08.001.
Izanlou, E., Zeinali Khanghah, H., Hoseinzadeh, E. & Majnoun Hodeini, N. (2002). Determination of the bestindicatorsof drought tolerance insoybeangenotypesbusiness. Abstracts of the Seventh Congress of Crop Sciences, Karaj, Seed and Plant Improvement Institute, Karaj.
Karam, F., Masaad, R., Sfeir, T., Mounzer, O. & Rouphael, Y. (2005). Evapotranspiration and seed yield of field grown soybean under deficit irrigation conditions. Agricultural and Water Management, 75(3), 226-244.
Kirnak, H., Dogan, E., Alpaslan, M., Celik, S., Boydak, E. & Copur, O. (2008). Drought stress imposed at different reproductive stages influences growth yield and seed composition of soybean. The Philippine Agricultural Scientist, 91(3), 261-268.
Kang, M. S. (1993). Simultaneous Selection for yield and stability in crop performance. Consequences for growers. Agronomy Journal, 85, 754-757.
Latifi, N. (1996). Soybeanagriculture. Publications University of Mashhad. Page 282.
Masoumi, H., Masoumi, M., Darvish, F., Daneshian, J., Nourmohammadi, GH. & Habibi, D. (2010). Change in several Antioxidant Enzymes Activity and Seed Yield by Water Deficit Stress in Soybean (Glycine max L.) Cultivars. Not Bot Hort Agrobot Cluj, 38(3), 50-59.
Mohagheghin, A., Rabee, B., Kafi Ghasemi, A. & Jvaher Dashti, M. (2008). Correlation between morphological traitd and grain yield in soybean. In: Procceding of the 10th Iranian Congress of Crop Science. 18-20 Aug. 2008. Karaj. Iran. (in Farsi)
Mogtahedi, E. & Lashgari, H. (1981).  Soybean agriculture. Sixth edition. Joint-stock enterprise development and cultivation of oilseeds. 28 pages.
Muchow, R. C., Sinclair, T. R. & Hammond, L. C. (1986). Response of leaf growth, leaf nitrogen, and stomatal conductance to water deficits during vegetative growth of field-grown soybean. Crop Science, 192, 26.
Liu, F. L., Jensen, C. R. & Andersen, M. N. (2004). Pot set related to photosynthetic rate and endogenous ABA in soybean subject to different water regimes and exogenous ABA and BA at early reproductive stages. Ann Bot, 94, 405-411.
Liu, F., Andersen, M. N., Jacobsen, S. E. & Jensen, C. R. (2005). Stomatal control and water use efficiency of soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.) during progressive soil drying. Environ Exp Bot, 54, 33-40.
Li, F. M., Wang, P., Wang, J. & Xu, J. Z. (2004). Effects of irrigation before sowing and plastic film mulching on yield and water uptake of spring wheat in semi-arid Loess Plateau of China. Agricultural and Water Management, 67(2), 77-88.
Ohashi, Y., Nakayama, N., Saneoka, H., Mohapatra, P. K. & Fujita, K. (2009). Differences in the responses of stem diameter and pod thickness to drought stress during the grain filling stage in soybean plants. Acta Physiol Plant, 31(2), 271-277.
Payghambari, S. E. & Alipour, H. (2013).  Designadditionalagriculturalexperiments, Second Edition, Tehran University Press. 415 page
Ramgiry, S. R. & Raha, P. (1997). Correlation and path analysis for yield and quality attributes in soybean (Glycine max L. Merrill). Crop Res Hisar, 13(1), 137-142.
Rezaeezadeh, E., Yazdi Samadi, B., Ahmadi, M.R. & Zeinali, H. (2004). Investigating the relationship between soybean yield and its components of Path coefficient analysis. Journal of Scienceand Technology of AgricultureandNatural Resources, 2(7), 86.
Rezaee zadeh, E., Yazdi Samadi, B., Ahmadi, M. & Zeinali, H. (2001).  Correlation analysis between yield and the components of soybeans with causality analysis. ScienceandTechnology of Agricultureand Natural Resources, 0.114 to 107.
Roustaee, M. & Sadeghzadehahari, D. (2003). Evaluate the stability and adaptability of grain yield wheat in cold and moderate. Journalof SeedPlants, 19(2), 275-263.
Ruhul Amin, A. K. M., Jahan, S. R. A. & Hasanuzzaman, M. (2009). Yield components and yield of three soybean varieties under different irrigation management. American-Eurasian Journal of Scientific Research, 4(1), 40-46.
Sabaghpour, S. H., Sadeghi, E. & Malhotra, S. (2003). Present status and future prospects of chickpea cultivation in Iran. In: Proceedings of International chickpea Con. j. 20-22. India Gandhi Agricultural University, Raipur Chhattisgarh, India.
Samarah, N. H., Mullen, R. E., Cianzio, S. R. & Scott, P. (2006). Dehydrin-like proteins in soybean seeds in response to drought stress during seed filling. Crop Science, 46, 2141-2150.
Samarah, N. H. (2005). Effect of drought stress on growth and yield of barley. Agron Sustain Dev, 25, 145-149.
SoilsBokaei, A.S., Babaee, H.R., Habibi, D., Javidfar, F. & Mohammadi, A. (2008). Path analysis for grain yield in soybean under different irrigaton conditions. In: Procceding of the 10th Iranian Congress of Crop Science 18-20 Aug. 2008. Karaj. Iran. (in Farsi)
Samnonsa, D. J., Peters, D. B. & Himowitz, T. (1980). Screening soybeans for tolerance to moisturestress: a field procedure. Field Crop Research, 3, 321.
Silvente, S. P., Anatoly, S. & Lara, M. (2012). Metabolite adjustments in drought tolerant and sensitive soybean genotypes in response to water stress, PLoS Onn, http://dx.doi.org/ .1371/journal.pone.0038554.
Zali, E., Sabaghpour, S. H., Farshadfar, E., Pezeshkpour, P., Safi Khani, M., Sarparast, R. & Hashembeigi, E. (2009). The stability analysis of Chickpea genotypes using the parameter ASU and comparison with other methods of stability analysis. The Science of Iran Crop Plants, 40(2), 29-21.