Comparison of Agronomic and Physiological Parameters of Durum Wheat Local Landraces and Commercial Cultivars

Abstract

Türkiye has great variation and production experience in terms of both bread and durum wheat landraces and commercial varieties. The study was carried out to evaluate of agronomic and physiological components of durum wheat commercial cultivars and landraces under rainfed conditions. In the experiments, totally 35 durum wheat landraces and commercial varieties were investigated in the 2018-2019 cropping years in the Trakia region, Türkiye. The experiment was laid out in a randomized complete blocks design with three replications. The results of variance analysis showed significant differences (p<0.01) among local landraces and commercial varieties for the traits studied except for chlorophyll content. Normalised difference vegetation index (NDVI) was measured in heading stages. Landraces have the highest NDVI compared with commercial varieties. Higher canopy temperature was measured in commercial cultivars (G35, G32, G34 and G33) while lower canopy temperature was detected in landraces (G2, G15). Flag leaf area was measured at heading stages and it was found significant difference among landraces and commercial cultivars. Landraces G3, G4 and G2 had the highest flag leaf area of 42.9, 40.6 and 39.9 cm2, respectively. Landraces had longer plant height and peduncle length than commercial varieties. The number of grains per spike and number of stomata were higher in commercial varieties and local landraces, respectively. Stomata measurements were made on samples taken from flag leaves during the heading period. Commercial varieties had higher values than landraces in terms of stomata width, height, area and perimeter. Cluster analysis clearly differentiated, commercial cultivars from the landraces based on agro-physiological data

Keywords

• Durum wheat
• landraces
• commercial cultivars
• agro-physiological parameters

References

1. Adamsen FJ, Pinter PJ, Barnes EM, LaMorte RL, Wall GW, Leavitt SW and Kimball BA, (1999). Measuring Wheat Senescence with a Digital Camera. Crop Science, 39, 719.
2. Araus JL, (1996). Integrati ve physiological criteria associated with yield potential. In: Reynolds, MP., Rajaram, S. and McNab, A. (Eds.). Increasing yield potential in wheat: breaking the barriers. CIMMYT, Mexico, D.F.
3. Babar MA, Reynolds MP, van Ginkel M, Klatt AR, Raun WR, Stone ML, (2006). Spectral Reflectance to Estimate Genetic Variation for In-Season Biomass. Leaf Chlorophyll, and Canopy Temperature in Wheat’ Crop Breeding and Genetics. Crop Sci. 46:1046-1057.
4. Bilgin O, Korkut KZ, Başer İ, Dağlıoğlu O, Öztürk İ, Kahraman T, (2008). Determination of Variability Between Grain Yield and Yield Components of Durum Wheat Varieties (Triticum durum Desf.) in Thrace Region. Journal of Tekirdağ Agricultural Faculty. 2008.5(2). P:101-109.
5. Bilgin O, Başer İ, Korkut ZK, Balkan A, (2011). Investigation on Selection Criteria for Drought Tolerance of Bread Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) In The North-West Turkey, Bangladesh J. Agril. Res. 36(2):291-303, June 2011.
6. Blum A, (2011). Plant Breeding for Water-Limited Environments. 254. New York, NY: Springer Science Business Media, LLC.
7. Brush SB, (1995). In situ conservation of landraces in centers of crop diversity. Crop Sci. 35:346-354. Dillen SY, Marron N, Koch B and Ceulemans R, (2008). Genetic variation of stomatal traits and carbon isotope discrimination in two hybrid poplar families (Populus deltoides ‘S9-2’× P. nigra ‘Ghoy’ and P. deltoides ‘S9-2’× P. trichocarpa ‘V24’). Annals of Botany, 102(3), 399-407.
8. Dodig D, Zoric M, Kobiljski B, Surlan-Momirovic G, Quarrie S, (2010). Assessing drought tolerance and regional patterns of genetic diversity among spring and winter bread wheat using simple sequence repeats and phenotypic data, Crop. Pasture Sci. 2010, 61:812

9. Elazab A, Bort J, Zhou B, Serret MD, Nieto-Taladriz MT and Araus JL, (2015). The combined use of vegetation indices and stable isotopes to predict durum wheat grain yield under contrasting water conditions. Agric. Water Manag. 158, 196–208. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat. 2015.05.003
10. Farooq M, (2023). Tolerance Against Combined Drought and Heat Stresses in Wheat Landraces of Omani Origin: Morphological, Physiological, Biochemical, and Grain Yield Assessment. J Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42729- 023-01462-6
11. Fischer, RA, (2001). Selection traits for improving yield potential. Application of physiology in wheat breeding, 13, 148-159.
12. Garcia del Moral LF, Rharrabti Y, Villegas D, Royo C, (2003). Evaluation of Grain Yield and Its Components in Durum Wheat under Mediterranean Conditions. Agronomy Journal, Volume: 95, Issue: 2. P:266-274. https://doi. org/10.2134/agronj2003.2660Ci Gomez KA, Gomez AA, (1984). Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. 2nd Ed. John Willey and Sons, Inc. New York. 641.
13. Gutierrez-Rodriguez M, Reynolds MP, EscalanteEstrada JA, Rodriguez-Gonzalez MT, (2004) Associati on between canopy reflectance indices and yield and physiological traits in bread wheat under drought and well-irrigated conditions. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 55(11):1139-1147.
14. Lopes MS, El-Basyoni I, Baenziger S, Singh S, Royo C, Ozbek K, (2015). Exploiting genetic diversity from landraces in wheat breeding for adaptation to climate change. J. Exp. Bot. 66, 3477–3486. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erv122
15. Ortiz R, Trethowan R, Ortiz Ferrara G, Iwanaga M, Dodds JH, Crouch JH, (2007). High yield potential, shuttle breeding and a new international wheat improvement strategy. Euphytica 157, 365–384. doi: 10.1007/s10681-007-9375-9
16. Öztürk İ, (2019). Phenotypic diversity and physiological characterization of durum wheat (Triticum durum L.) landraces under rainfed conditions. Wheat Diversity and Human Health. Book of Abstracts. P: 79. October 22-24, 2019, İstanbul, Turkey.
17. Pask AJD, Pietragalla J, Mullan DM and Reynolds MP, (Eds.) (2012). Physiological Breeding II: A Field Guide to Wheat Phenotyping. Mexico, D.F.: CIMMYT.
18. Reynolds MP, Nagarajan S, Razzaque MA, Ageeb OAA, (2001). Heat Tolerance. Application of Physiology in Wheat Breeding. Chapter 10, p.124-135. International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center, CIMMYT. Mexico.
19. Richards RA, Rebetzke GJ, Condon AG and Watt M, (2011). Breeding to improve grain yield in water limited environments: the CSIRO experience with wheat, in Crop Stress Management and Global Climate Change, eds J. L. Araus and G. A. Slafer (Wallington, UK: CABI), 105-121.
20. Reynolds MP, Pask AJD and Mullan DM. (Eds.), (2012). Physiological Breeding, I: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Improve Crop Adaptation. Mexico, D.F.: CIMMYT.
21. Royoa C, Dreisigackerb S, Ammarb K, Villegasa D, (2020). Agronomic performance of durum wheat landraces and modern cultivars and its association with genotypic variation in vernalization response (Vrn-1) and photoperiod sensitivity (Ppd-1) genes. European Journal of Agronomy 120, 126129.
22. Soriano JM, Villegas D, Sorrells ME and Royo C, (2018). Durum Wheat Landraces from East and West Regions of the Mediterranean Basin Are Genetically Distinct for Yield Components and Phenology. Front. Plant Sci. 9:80.
23. Zadoks J, Chang T and Konzak C, (1974). A decimal code for the growth stages of cereals. Weed research 14: 415-421. Ward JH Jr., (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 58:236–244.