INTEGRATING DIFFERENT STABILITY MODELS TO INVESTIGATE HIGH YIELDING SAFFLOWER (Charthamus tinctorius L.) GENOTYPES

Year 2021, Volume: 26 Issue: 1, 103 - 110, 29.06.2021

Hasan Koç

https://doi.org/10.17557/tjfc.797419

Cited By: 1

Abstract

This study was conducted to investigate seed yield stability of the safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) genotypes grown for five years (2014 – 2018) under different climate conditions of Central Anatolia Region with large differences in climate conditions year to year in Turkey. A total of 17 safflower genotypes were used in this study. Experiments were conducted in randomized blocks design with four replications. The parameters of S⁽¹⁾, S⁽²⁾, S⁽³⁾, S⁽⁶⁾, NP⁽¹⁾, NP⁽²⁾, NP⁽³⁾, NP⁽⁴⁾, Wᵢ², σ²ᵢ, s²dᵢ, bᵢ, CVi, θ₍ᵢ₎ and θᵢ, 𝘒R were used to determine seed yield stability of the genotypes. Biplot graphs were used for visual assessment of the relationships among the methods utilized. Göktürk, Dinçer, G5 and G9 genotypes were identified as stable based on majority of the methods and they had seed yields greater than the general averages (2.90, 2.85, 2.83 and 2.82 t ha-1, respectively). Based on the relationships among the methods, present parameters were divided into four groups. Present findings revealed that Group I (S⁽⁶⁾, NP⁽²⁾, NP⁽³⁾, NP⁽⁴⁾, 𝘒R) could be used as selection criteria to determine high-yield and stable genotypes. Instead of using several methods to identify stable genotypes, a single parameter from each group of methods will be sufficient. As it was in multi-environment experiments, stability analyses had significant contributions for identification of high-yield and stable genotypes in multi-year experiments. The stable and high-yield genotype G9 was registered in 2019 in Turkey under the name of “Koc”.

Keywords

Safflower, seed yield, stability, parametric, non parametric

References

• Akcura, M. and Y.Kaya. 2008. Non-parametric stability methods for interpreting genotype by environment interaction of bread wheat genotypes (Triticum aestivum L.). Genetics and Molecular Biology 31(4): 906-913. Akcura, M., Y. Kaya, S. Taner. 2009. Evaluation of durum wheat genotypes using parametric and nonparametric stability statistics. Turkish Journal of Field Crops 14(2): 111-122.
• Akcura, M., Y. Kaya, S. Taner, R. Ayrancı. 2006. Parametric stability analyses for grain yield of durum wheat. Plant Soil and Environment 52(6):254.
• Akcura, M. and A. Turan. 2020. Investigation of Genotype × Environment Interaction with different methods in grain yield of edible cluster bean. Turkish Journal of Agricultural and Natural Sciences 7 (3): 798-805.
• Awoke, S. and M.K. Sharma. 2016. Parametric and non-parametric methods to describe genotype by environment interaction and grain yield stability of bread wheat. Statistics and applications. 14: 9-29.
• Becker, HC. and J. Leon.1988. Stability analysis in plant breeding. Plant Breed. 101:1-23.
• Eberhart, SAT. and WA. Russell.1966. Stability parameters for comparing varieties. Crop Sci 6:36-40.
• Finlay, KW. and GN. Wilkinson. 1963. Adaptation in a plant breeding programme. Aust J Agric Res. 14:742-754.
• Flores, F., MT. Moreno and JI. Cubero. 1998. A comparison of univariate and multivariate methods to analyze G x E interaction. Field Crops Research 56: 271-286.
• Fox, PN., B. Skovmand, BK. Thompson, HJ. Braun and Cormier R. 1990. Yield and adaptation of hexaploid spring triticale. Euphytica 47: 57-64.
• Francis, TR. and LW. Kannenberg .1978. Yield stability studies in short-season maize: I. A descriptive method for grouping genotypes. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 58: 1029-1034.
• Goksoy, AT., M. Sincik, M. Erdogmus, M. Ergin, S. Aytac, G, Gumuscu et all. 2019. The Parametrıc and non-parametrıc stabılıty analyses for interpretıng genotype by envıronment interactıon of some soybean genotypes. Turkish Journal Of Field Crops 24(1): 28-38.
• Hocaoglu, O., K. Akan and M. Akcura. 2020. Evaluating leaf rust reactions of pure bread wheat landrace lines using non-parametric statistics. Phytoparasitica 48: 261-271.
• Huehn, M. 1990. Non-parametric measures of phenotypic stability. Part 1: Theory. Euphytica 47: 189-199.
• Jamshidmoghaddam, M. and SS. Pourdad. 2013. Genotype × environment interactions for seed yield in rainfed winter safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) multi-environment trials in Iran. Euphytica 180:321-335.
• Kang, MS. 1993. Simultaneous selection for yield and stability in crop performance trials: Consequences for growers. Agron. J. 85: 754-757.
• Kang, MS. and R. Magari.1995. STABLE: A BASIC program for calculating stability and yield-stability statistics. Agron. J. 87: 276-277.
• Ketata, H. 1988. Genotype x environment interaction. (Proceeding of the workshop on biometrical techniques for cereal breeders). ICARDA, Aleppo, Syria. pp. 16-32.
• Koc, H. 2020. Effects of seedling stage drought on seed yield, oil rate and oil yield in safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L) genotypes. KSU Journal of Agriculture and Nature 23(6): 1626-1633.
• Mohammadi, M., R. Karimizadeh, N. Sabaghnia and MK. Shefazadeh. 2012. Genotype × environment interaction and yield stability analysis of new improved bread wheat genotypes. Turk J Field Crops 17 (1): 67-73.
• Nassar, R. and M. Huehn. 1987. Studies on estimation of phenotypic stability: Tests of significance for nonparametric measures of phenotypic stability. Biometrics 43: 45-53.
• Oyekunle, M., A. Haruna, BB. Apraku, IS. Usman, H. Mani, SG. Ado, G. Olaoye, K. Obeng-Antwi, RO. Abdulmalik and HO Ahmad. 2016. Assessment of early-maturing maize hybrids and testing sites using GGE biplot analysis. Crop Sci 57:1-9.
• Plaisted, RI. and LC. Peterson. 1959. A technique for evaluating the ability of selection to yield consistently in different locations or seasons. American Potato Journal 36: 381-385.
• Plaisted, RL. 1960. A shorter method for evaluating the ability of selections to yield consistently over locations. American Potato Journal 37: 166-172.
• Pour-Aboughadareh, A., M. Yousefian, H. Moradkhani, P. Poczai and KHM. Siddique. 2019. STABILITYSOFT: a new online program to calculate parametric and non- parametric stability statistics for crop traits. Appl. Plant Sci 7: e1211.
• Semenov, MA. and NG. Halfor. 2009. Identifying target traits and molecular mechanisms for wheat breeding under a changing climate. Journal of Experimental Botany 60 (10): 2791-2804.
• Shukla, GK. 1972. Some statistical aspects of partitioning genotype-environmental components of variability. Heredity 29: 237-245.
• Simmonds, NW. 1991. Selection for local adaptataion in a plant breeding programme. Theor. Applied Genet. 82 (3): 363-367.
• Sozen, O, U. Karadavut, H. Ozcelik, H. Bozoglu and M. Akcura. 2018. Genotype × Environment interaction of some dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) genotypes. Legume Research (41) 2: 189-195.
• Thennarasu, K. 1995. On certain non-parametric procedures for studying genotype-environment interactions and yield stability. Indian J. Genet 60: 433-439.
• Vaezi, B., A. Pour-Aboughadareh, R. Mohammadi, A. Mehraban, T. Hossein-Pour et al. 2019. Integrating different stability models to investigate genotype × environment interactions and identify stable and high-yielding barley genotypes. Euphytica 215(4):63.
• Wricke, G. 1962. Ubereine Methode zur Erfassung der okologischen Streubreite in Feldversuchen. Zeitschrift fur Pflanzenzuchtung 47: 92-96.
• Yan, W. 2014. Crop Variety Trials: Data Management and Analysis John Wiley and Sons, 349.
• Yıldırım, MB., CF. Caliskan and Y. Arshad. 1992. Determining the environmental adaptability of some potato genotypes using different stability parameters. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry 3(16): 621-629.
• Zaluski, D., J. Tworkowski, M. Krzyżaniak, MJ. Stolarski and J. Kwiatkowski. 2020. The characterization of 10 Spring camelina genotypes grown in environmental Conditions in North-Eastern Poland. Agronomy, 10 (1), 64: 1-13.