گروه‎بندی شاخص‎های تحمل و واکنش نژادگان‌های نخود تیپ کابلی و دسی نسبت به تنش خشکی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی سابق دکتری، ژنتیک بیومتری، دانشگاه زنجان

2 کارشناس پژوهش‌های کاربردی، مرکز تحقیقات حفاظت خاک و آب در اراضی دیم دانشگاه تهران (کوهین)

3 استادیار، گروه زراعت و اصلاح نباتات، دانشکدۀ کشاورزی، دانشگاه زنجان

4 استاد، گروه زراعت و اصلاح نباتات، پردیس کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی دانشگاه تهران، کرج

چکیده

در این بررسی واکنش 64 نژادگان (ژنوتیپ) نخود به تنش خشکی در ایستگاه تحقیقاتی دیم کوهین (دانشگاه تهران) با آزمایشی در قالب طرح لاتیس ساده 8×8 در دو شرایط تنش و بدون تنش ارزیابی شدند. بر پایۀ نتایج به‌دست‌آمده از نظر شاخص‎های واکنش خشکی MP، GMP، HARM، STI، YI، K1STI و K2STI نژادگان شمارۀ 51، از لحاظ شاخص‌های SSI، YSI، YR و RDI، نژادگان شمارۀ 18، از نظر شاخص‌های TOL، ATI، SSPI و DRI نژادگان شمارۀ 16 و از لحاظ شاخص‌های DI و SNPI نژادگان شمارۀ 42 به‌عنوان متحمل‌ترین نژادگان‌ها مشخص شد. شاخص‌های MP، GM، HARM، STI، TOL، YI، DI، ATI، SSPI، SNPI، K1STI و K2STI در هر دو شرایط بدون تنش و تنش همبستگی قوی و مثبتی را با عملکرد در شرایط بدون تنش و تنش نشان داده و برای گزینش نژادگان متحمل و حساس معرفی شدند. تحلیل عاملی در عامل اول با توجیه 57/62 درصد تغییر، بیشترین نمره را به نژادگان‌های 51، 60، 53 و 52 (منطقۀ A) به‌عنوان متحمل‌ترین، کمترین نمره را به نژادگان‌های 32، 27، 24 و 62 (منطقۀ D) به‌عنوان حساس‌ترین نژادگان داده و عامل دوم با توجیه 28/33 درصد از تغییر، بیشترین نمره را به نژادگان‌های 29، 51، 60 و 28 (منطقۀ A) و کمترین نمره را به نژادگان‌های 18، 16، 42، 24 و 64 (منطقۀ C و D) داد. بر پایۀ تجزیۀ خوشه‌ای شاخص‌های واکنش به خشکی، نژادگان‌ها در سه خوشه گروه‌بندی شدند، به‌طوری‌که نژادگان‌های متحمل در خوشۀ 3، حساس در خوشۀ 2 و بینابین در خوشۀ 1 دسته‌بندی قرار گرفتند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Grouping of tolerance indices and response of Kabuli and Desi type chickpea genotypes to drought stress

نویسندگان [English]

  • Khodabakhsh Goodarzvand Chegini 1 2
  • Reza Fotovat 3
  • Mohammad Reza Bihamta 4
  • Mansour Omidi 4
  • Ali Akbar Shahnejant Boushehri 4
1 Former Ph. D. Student of Biometery Genetics, Zanjan University
2 Applied Research Expert, Soil and Water Conservation Research Center at University of Tehran (Kuhin Dry Lands), Iran
3 Ph.D. Candidate and Assistant Professor, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zanjan, Iran
4 Professor, Department of Plant Breeding and Agronomy, University College of Agriculture & Natural Resources, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran
چکیده [English]

In this study, response of 64 Kabuli chickpea genotypes under drought stress was conducted by 8*8 simple lattice designs under non-stress and stress conditions on the Research Field of Koohin (Tehran University). According to MP, GMP, HARM, STI, YI, K1STI and K2STI, genotype No-51, according to SSI, YSI, YR and RDI, genotype No-18, according to TOL, ATI, SSPI and DRI, genotype No-16, according to DI and SNPI, genotype No-42 were identified as the most tolerant genotypes. Indices of MP, GM, HARM, STI, TOL, YI, DI, ATI, SSPI, SNPI, K1STI and K2STI had robust and positive correlation with yield in non stress and stress conditions and introduced for selection of tolerate and sensitive genotypes to drought stress. Factor coefficient in first factor with explanation of 62.57%, gave the highest scores to genotypes of 51, 60, 53 and 52 (Zone of A) as most tolerance gave the least scores to genotypes of 32, 27, 24 and 62 as most sensitive (Zone of D) and second factors with explanation of 33.28% gave the highest scores to genotypes of 29, 51, 60 and 28 (Zone of A) as most tolerance gave the least scores to genotypes of 18, 16, 42 and 24 as most sensitive (Zone of D and C). The cluster analysis based on drought tolerance indices, the genotypes were grouping in three clusters, so that tolerant genotypes grouped in cluster three, the sensitive genotypes grouped in cluster two and the semi sensitive genotypes grouped in cluster one.
 
Abbreviations: YP= potential yield; YS = Stress  yield; MP= Mean productivity; GMP= Geometric Mean productivity; HARM= Harmonic Mean; SSI= Susceptibility Stress index; STI= Stress Tolerance index; TOL= Tolerance index; YI= Yield index; YSI= Yield stabilty index; DI= Drought resistance index; ATI= Abiotic tolerance index; SSPI= Stress Susceptivity Percent Index; SNPI= Stress Non-stress productivity index; K1STI & K2STI = Modified Stress Tolerance index; RDI= Relative Drought index; DRI= Drought Response index.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Drought stress
  • drought tolerance response
  • Kabuli chickpea
  • Seed yield

مراجع

  1. Aghaei, M., Mirakhorli, Vaezi, A. Sh. & Khuhpaigani, A. (2005). Potential of genetic diversity in Iranian Chickpea collection. Of the first Pulses congress, 2005. Ferdosi university of Mashhad
  2. Ahmad, F., Gaur, P. & Croser, J. (2005). Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). In: Singh R., Jauhar P. (eds.). Genetic Resources, Chromosome Engineering and Crop Improvement-Grain Legumes, CRC Press USA, 185-214.
  3. Ahmadi, J., Zeinaly Khanghah, H., Rostamy, M. A. & Chogan, R. (2000). Study of drought tolerance indices and biplot method in eight corn hybrids. Iranian Journal of Agriculture Science, 31, 513-523. (in Farsi)
  4. Bidinger, F. R., Mahalakshami, V. & Rao, G. D. P. (1987). Assessment of drought resistance in pearel millet (Pennisetum americanum L.). II. Estimation of genotype response to stress. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 38, 49-59.
  5. Blum, A. (1988). Plant Breeding for Stress Environments. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA. pp 38-78
  6. Bouslama, M. & Schapaugh, W. T. (1984). Stress tolerance in soybean. Part 1: Evaluation of three screening techniques for heat and drought tolerance. Crop Science, 24, 933-947.
  7. Boyer, J. S. (1982). Plant productivity and environment. Journal of Science, 218(4571), 443-448.
  8. Clark, J. M. R., Depauw, M. & Ownley-Smith, T. F. (1992). Evaluation of methods for quantification of drought tolerance in wheat. Journal of Crop Science, 32, 723-728.
  9. Eivazi, A., Taghikhani, H., Shiralizadeh, S. H., Rezaei, M. & Mousavi Anzabi, S. H. (2012). Evaluation of response of chickpea genotypes to water deficit at different growth stages by using drought tolerance indices. Iranian Journal of Pulses Research, 3(1), 81-92. (in Farsi)
  10. Farshadfar, E. & Sutka, J. (2002). Multivariate analysis of drought tolerance in wheat substitution lines. Cereal Research Communications, 31, 33-39.
  11. Farshadfar, E. A., Zamani, M. R., Matlabi, M. & Emam-Jome, E. E. (2001). Selection for drought resistance chickpea lines. Iranian Journal of Agriculture Science, 32(1), 65-77. (in Farsi)
  12. Fernandez, G. C. J. (1992). Effective selection criteria for assessing plant stress tolerance. pp. 257-270. In: Kuo, C. G. (ed.) Proceedings of a Symposium on Adaptation of Vegetables and other Food Crops in Temperature and Water Stress. AVRDC Publications, Tainan, Taiwan.
  13. Fischer, R. A. & Maurer, R. (1978). Drought resistance in spring wheat cultivars. I. Grain yield responses. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 29, 897-912.
  14. Fischer, R. A. & Wood, T. (1979). Drought resistance in spring wheat cultivars III. Yield association with morphological traits. Australian Journal of Agriculture Research, 30, 1001-1201
  15. Ganjali, A., Bagheri, A. & Porsa, H. (2009). Evaluation of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) germplasm for drought resistance. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 7(1), 183-194. (in Farsi)
  16. Ganjali, A., Kafi, A., Bagheri, A. & Shahriyari, F. (2005). Screening for drought tolerance in chickpea genotypes (Cicer arietinum L.). Iranian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 3(1), 103-122. (in Farsi)
  17. Gavuzzi, P., Rizza, F., Palumbo, M., Campaline, R. G., Ricciardi, G. L. & Borghi, B. (1997). Evaluation of field and laboratory predictors of drought and heat tolerance in winter cereals. Journal of Plant Science, 77, 523-531.
  18. Gholinezhad, E., Darvishzadeh, R. & Bernousi, I. (2014). Evaluation of Drought Tolerance Indices for Selection of Confectionery Sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) Landraces under Various Environmental Conditions. Notulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici, 42(1), 187-201.
  19. Ghorbani, T., Cheghamirza, K., Bardideh, K and Basiri Shoar, P.2013. Recognition and determination of related traits importance with seed yield in chickpea (Cicer arietinum). Plant breeding science. Volume 68.  Pp. 15-24
  20. Godschalk, E. B. & Timothy, D. H. (1988). Factor and principal component analyses as alternative to index selection. Theorical and Applied Genetetics, 76, 352-360.
  21. Golestani-Araghi, S. & Assad, M. T. (1998). Evaluation of four screening techniques for drought resistance and their relationship to yield reduction ratio in wheat. Euphytica, 103, 293-299.
  22. Guttieri, M. J., Stark, J. C., Brien, K. & Souza, E. (2001). Relative sensitivity of spring wheat grain yield and quality parameters to moisture deficit. Journal of Crop Science, 41, 327-335.
  23. Jahansuz, M. R., Naghavi, M. R. & Dolati Tapeh Rasht, M. (2004). A Study of Relationships between Different Traits in White and Black Chickpea. Iranian Journal of Agriculture Science, 35(3).
  24. Johansen, C., Krishnamurthy, L., Saxena, N. P. & Sethi, S. C. (1994). Genotypic variation in moisture response of chickpea grown under line-source sprinklers in a semi-arid tropical environment. Field Crops Research, 37, 103-112.
  25. Kargar, M. A., Ghanadha, M. R., Bozorgipour, A. A., Atari, Kh. A. & Babai, H. R. (2004). Evaluation of drough resistance indices in some soybean genotypes at restricted condition. Iranian Journal of Agriculture Science, 35, 129-142. (in Farsi)
  26. Khan, F. U. & Mohammad, F. (2016). Application of stress selection indices for assessment of nitrogen tolerance in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). The Journal of Animal & Plant Sciences, 26(1), 201-210.
  27. Khan, I. A., Imtiaz, S. & Malik, B. A. (1991). Selection of diverse parents of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) by multivariate analysis and degree of heterosis of their F1 hybrids. Euphytica, 51(3), 227-233.
  28. Kirigwi, F. M., Van Ginkel, M., Trethowan, R., Sears, R. G., Rajaram, S. & Paulsen, G. M. (2004). Evaluation of selection strategies for wheat adaptation across water regimes. Euphatica, 135, 361-371.
  29. Kristin, A. A., Serna, R. R., Perez, F. I., Enriquez, B. C., Gallegos, J. A. A., Vallejo, P. R., Wassimi, N. & Kelley, J. D. (1997). Improving common bean performance under drought stress. Crop Science, 37, 43-50.
  30. Lan, J. (1998). Comparison of evaluating methods for agronomic drought resistance in crops. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-occidentalis Sinica, 7, 85-87.
  31. Langer, I., Freyand, K. J. & Bailey, T. (1979). Associations among productivity, production response and stability indices in oats varieties. Euphytica, 28, 17-24.
  32. Moghaddam, A. & Hadizadeh, M. H. (2002). Response of corn (Zea mays L.) hybrids and their parental lines to drought using different stress tolerance indices. Seed Plant Production Journals, 18(3), 255-272. (in Farsi with English Abstract)
  33. Mohammad Alipour Yamchi, H., Bihamta, M. R., Peighambari, S. A. & Naghavi, M. R. (2011). Evaluation of drought tolerance in Kabuli type chickpea genotypes. Iranian Journal of Sees and Plant Breeding, 3, 393-409. (in Farsi)
  34. Moosavi, S. S., Yazdi Samadi, B., Naghavi, M. R., Zali, A. A., Dashti, H. & Pourshahbazi, A. (2008). Introduction of new indices to identify relative drought tolerance and resistance in wheat genotypes. Desert, 12, 165-178.
  35. Naeemi, M., Akbari, Gh. A., Shirani Rad, A. H., Modares Sanavi, S. A. M., Sadat Nuri, S. A. & Jabari, H. (2008). Evaluation of drought tolerance in different Canola cultivars based on stress evaluation indices in terminal growth duration. Electronic Journal of Crop Production, 1(3), 83-98. (in Farsi)
  36. Nakhaei, A., Abbasi, M. R., Arazmjoo, E. & Azari, M. A. (2014). Evaluation of terminal drought tolerance in Foxtail millet (Setaria italica) accessions. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences, 16(1), 25-38. (in Farsi)
  37. Narayan, R. K. J. & Macefield, A. J. (1976). Adaptive responses and genetic divergence in a world germplasm collection of chick pea (Cicer arietinum L.). Theoretical and applied genetics, 47(4), 179-187.
  38. Pourdad, S. S., Alizadeh, K. H., Azizinezhad, R., Shariati, A., Askandari, M., Khiyavi, M. & Ezatollahe, N. (2008).  Evaluation of different safflowers in different regions. Journal of Science and Technology of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 12(45), 403-415. (in Farsi with English abstract)
  39. Pouresmael, M., Akbari, M., Vaezi, S. & Shahmoradi, S. (2009). Effects of drought stress gradient on agronomic traits in kabuli chickpea core collection. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences, 11(4), 307-324. (in Farsi)
  40. Quisenberry, J. E. (1982). Breeding for drought resistance and plant water use efficiency. Pp. 193-212. In: Christiansen MN and Lewis CP (eds). Breeding plants for less favorable environments. Wiley Intersciences. New York, USA.
  41. Ramirez, V. P. & Kelly, J. D. (1998). Traits related to drought resistance in common bean. Euphytica, 99, 127-136
  42. Rosielle, A. A. & Hamblin, J. (1981). Theoretical aspects of selection for yield in stress and non-stress environments. Crop Science, 21 943-946.
  43. Safari, S., Dehghan, H. & Chogan, R. (2007). Evaluation of corn inbred lines for water resistance based on resistance indices and biplot method. Iranian Journal of Agriculture Science, 38(2), 215-228.
  44. Saxena, N. P., Saxina, M. C. & Johansen, S. M. (1996). Adaptation of chickpea in the west Asia and North Africa region. ICARDA publication.
  45. Schneider, K. A., Rosales-Serna, R., Ibbara-Perez, F., Cazares-Enriquez, B., Acosta-Gallegos, J. A., Ramirez-Vallejo, P., Wassimi, N. & Kelly, J. D. (1997). Improving common bean performance under drought stress. Crop Science, 37, 43-50.
  46. Singh, K. B. (1997). Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Field Crops Research, 53,161-170
  47. Singh, S. P., Teran, H. & Gutierez, J. A. (2001). Registration of SEA 5 and SEA 13 drought tolerant dry bean germplasm. Crop Science, 41, 276-277.
  48. Taghvaei, M., Chaeichi, M., Sharifzadeh, F. & Ahmadi, A. (2007). Evaluation of drought stress on yield and yield components and drought tolerance indices in hull-less and coated barley cultivars. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Science, 38(1), 67-78. (in Farsi with English Abstract)
  49. Zahravi, M. (2009). Evaluation of genotypes of wild barley (Hordeum spontaneum) based on drought tolerance indices.Seed and Plant Improvment Journal, 25(4), 533-549. (in Farsi with English abstract)

فایل ها

سابقه مقاله

  • تاریخ دریافت: 21 تیر 1395
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 30 مرداد 1395
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 23 شهریور 1395
  • تاریخ انتشار: 01 آذر 1396

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار