artigo 1 wheat english -...

Assessing stabiliy performance of wheat genotypes for yield and some yield components under irigated and non-irragated conditions

Olgun, M.; Kutlu, İ.; Ayter, N.G.; Başçiftçi, Z.B.

Custos e @gronegócio on line - v. 10, n. 3 – Jul/Sep. - 2014. ISSN 1808-2882 www.custoseagronegocioonline.com.br

2


Reception of originals: 04/18/2014 Release for publication: 05/02/2014

Murat Olgun

Dr. in Field Crops Institution: Osmangazi University

Address: Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Field Crops, Eskişehir/ Turkey. E-mail: [email protected]

İmren Kutlu Dr. in Field Crops

Institution: Osmangazi University Address: Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Field Crops, Eskişehir/ Turkey.

E-mail: [email protected]

Nazife Gözde Ayter

M.Sc. in Field Crops Institution: Osmangazi University


Zekiye Budak Başçiftçi

Dr. in Field Crops Institution: Osmangazi University


Abstract The main objective of this study was to determine the performance and stability of wheat genotypes for yield and yield components under irrigated and non-irrigated conditions in years of 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. Five commercial cultivars (Dağdaş-94, Fatıma, Bezostaja-1, Sürak and Kınaci-97) and six advanced bread wheat lines (ESOGUZFE–7, ESOGUZFE–6, ESOGUZFE–5, ESOGUZFE–4, ESOGUZFE–3, ESOGUZFE–2) were grown in irrigated and non-irrigated conditions arranged in randomized complete block design with three replications. Genotype x environment interactions, stability performances in genotypes for yield and yield components were determined. Fatıma, ESOGUZFE-6, ESOGUZFE-7, Bezostaja-1 were high yielding and stabile genotypes under different climatic conditions over three years.

Keywords: Bread wheat. Yield. Yield components. Genotype x environment interaction. Stability.




3

1. Introduction

Wheat is one of the significant crops, playing important role in terms of economy,

production, food, nourishment in the world (Varga et al., 2002; Bayaner, 2002). Human

population reached about 7 billion and in the same way the need for food has been increasing

geometrically (Byerlee and Maya, 1993; Garcia del Moral et al., 2003). Besides, due to misuses

and losses of agricultural lands, increases in demands of food supply will occur to be two-folded

in the near future, (Walburger et al., 1999; Sial et al., 2000; Aggarwal and Singh, 2010). Like in

the world, bread wheat is major crop in Turkey with almost 8 million ha acreage, 20 million ton

production and 2.2 t/ha grain yield (Anonymous, 2012a; Anonymous, 2012b; Çetinkaya, 2012).

Tremendous increases have occurred since last 40 years through development of high yielding

and stabile cultivars, having good bread making quality, resistance to biotic/abiotic stresses.

Therefore development of high yielding cultivar have merely taken place by efficient and

successful breeding programs (Zecevic et al., 2010).

Water is vital factor on growth and performance of wheat (Özberk et al., 2004; Özberk et

al., 2005). Water shortage in other word drought during early development and after anthesis

may cause about 20-80 % reduction in grain yield (Vinocur and Altman 2005; Farooq et al.,

2009). Yield and yield components are formed by interaction between genotype and environment

(Mohammed, 2009). Royo et. al. (2000) reported that drought stress with high temperature

shortened grain fillings period and reduced 1000 grain weight. Besides drought stress decreased

on yield spike number per m2, weight of grain per spike, harvest index and biological yield

(Shamsi et al., 2011). Gorjanovic and Kraljevic-Balalic (2005) demonstrated that yield

significantly depends upon such yield components and highly variable with different

environments. Yield components along with grain yield are affected genotype x environment

interactions (Loss and Siddique,1994; Blum, 2005; Özberk et al., 2011). Sabaghnia et al. (2012)

well described genotype x environment interaction that is milestone in variations of genotypic

performances in wheat. It has been cleared that once breeding programs in wheat succeeded to

increase yield potential they should succeed to increase better performance of genotypes in

different environments or climatic conditions, drought, heat, cold, water logging etc. (Vicki,

2001; Seter and Waters, 2003; Beck et al., 2007; Farooq et al., 2009). Genotypic formation and

association in genotypes including performance and stability of yield and yield components

could increase effectiveness of breeding programs (Korkut and Baser, 1995; Panayotov, 2000;

Weikai and Hunt, 2001, Bedo and Lang, 2005; Evans and Fischer, 1999). Stability is described




4

as low G x E interaction variance, higher grain yield over average, and regression coefficient

close to 1, lower deviations from the expected response to environments, years (Kafa and Kırtok,

1991). Besides Zecevic et. al. (2010) stressed that stability in yield and yield components over

range of environments/years are important components; variability of yield components is less

studied than yield in wheat. It was described that instability or in consistency in yield among

environments or years could appear as response of difference in performance versus

environments or years. Stability studies are mostly based on grain yield. Stability of genotypes

for yield components is less studied. Determining genotype environment interaction can promote

to set up breeding objectives, assist to determine priorities for programs (Sial et al., 2000). The

main objective of this study was to determine the performance of wheat genotypes for yield and

yield components under irrigated and non-irrigated conditions. Our aim was also stability of

yield and yield components in genotypes versus years.

2. Materials and Method

This study was conducted in experimental area of Agricultural Faculty of Osmangazi

University in Eskişehir during crop growing season of 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012

(36o 56o North, 30o 32o East, 788 m altitude). Physical and chemical characteristic of soil were

loamy texture clay, 0.05 % in salt, 1.7 % organic matter, 1.7 in loam, 34.2 kg/ha in P2O5, 1100

kg/ha K2O, 7.6 in pH, 1.3 ds m2 in electrical conductivity. Average, minimum and maximum

temperatures, precipitations in of 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and long term years (1970-

2009) were given in table 1.




5

Table 1: Average, minimum and maximum temperatures, precipitations in of 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and long term years in Eskişehir.

Cli

mat

ic

Par

am.

Yea

rs

Oct

ober

Nov

emb

er

Dec

emb

er

Jan

uar

y

Feb

ruar

y

Mar

ch

Apr

il

May

June

July

Tot

./Av.

Max

. T

emp.

(º

C)

2009-10 29.2 21.6 17.5 20.2 20.4 22.8 23.2 30.8 32.5 39.1 25.7 2010-11 20.3 22.6 19.8 13.0 14.0 21.9 19.4 26.6 32.8 36.2 22.7 2011-12 24.2 21.8 19.1 14.3 17.8 24.6 24.4 29.2 34.3 38.9 24.9

Long 33.0 25.4 21.4 20.2 20.5 28.1 31.1 33.3 36.8 40.6 29.0

Min

. T

emp.

(º

C)

2009-10 -0.5 -7.0 -8.0 -11.7 -14.0 -7.5 -4.2 2.0 8.7 12.8 -1.7 2010-11 -2.0 -2.2 -8.5 -8.0 -11.2 -7.9 -3.4 0.0 3.7 10.3 -2.9 2011-12 -3.3 -6.7 -9.1 -7.4 -12.9 -8.1 -2.8 1.5 5.6 6.6 -2.6

Long -6.8 -12.2 -19.2 -27.8 -22.4 -12.0 -10.4 -2.2 0.5 5.0 -10.8

Av.

T

emp

. (º

C)

2009-10 14.5 6.0 4.6 2.3 5.7 6.7 10.2 16.4 19.4 23.3 10.9 2010-11 10.8 10.0 4.9 0.9 1.3 4.8 8.0 13.7 18.1 23.4 9.6 2011-12 8.5 0.8 0.9 -3.6 -5.5 1.5 12.0 14.4 20.1 22.8 7.2

Long 11.7 5.6 1.7 -0.2 0.9 4.9 9.6 14.9 19.1 22.1 9.0

Tot

al

Ra.

(m

m)

2009-10 18.3 29.3 69.7 31.5 50.3 27.7 41.2 5.7 46.6 14.3 334.6 2010-11 105.9 10.1 57.1 18.3 10.6 16.6 60.8 92.5 32.0 20.0 423.9 2011-12 5.8 0.0 46.1 58.0 42.1 56.4 22.1 80.9 0.0 5.5 316.9

Long 32.8 34.0 40.5 30.6 26.1 27.6 43.1 40.0 23.7 13.1 311.5 *Data of regional meteorology station, Eskişehir, **Long years include years of 1970-2012

Precipitations in 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and long term years were 334.6 mm,

423.9 mm and 311.5 mm, respectively. Besides, minimum, maximum and average temperatures

were -1.7 °C, 25.7 °C and 10.9 °C in 2009-2010; -2.9 °C, 22.7 °C and 9.6 °C in 2010-2011; -2.7

°C, 24.9 °C and 7.2 °C in 2011-2012; -10.8 °C, 29.0 °C and 9.0 °C in long term years. Total

rainfall for three years were higher than long term periods. Besides, monthly rainfalls in 2010-2011

were higher than the other two years. Average temperatures in the spring were cooler than long term

average temperatures (Table 1). Five commercial cultivars (Dağdaş-94, Fatıma, Bezostaja-1, Sürak

and Kınaci-97) and six advanced bread wheat lines (ESOGUZFE–7, ESOGUZFE–6, ESOGUZFE–

5, ESOGUZFE–4, ESOGUZFE–3, ESOGUZFE–2) were used in non-irrigated and irrigated growing

conditions in Eskişehir province. Experiments were carried out in randomized complete block

design with three replications. Plot sizes were 8.0x0.20x6.0=9.6 m2 at planting 7.0x0.20x6=8.4

m2 at harvest. 100 kg N/ha in rainfall conditions, 60 kg N/ha in rain fed conditions (½ in planting

and ½ in early spring) were applied. Besides, amount of P2O5 was 60 kg/ha in both conditions

(all at planting). Three times irrigation (at planning, at early spring and flowering time) were

applied in irrigated conditions. Genotypes were sown at seed rate of 500 seed m2 in first half of

September and harvested in first half of July. Weed controls were made by 1.6 lt/ha of 2.4, D

amine herbicide. Stability analyses (genotypes x environment interaction) for yield and yield

components based on two conditions (irrigated and non-irrigated conditions) over three years




6

were performed as suggested Finley and Winkinson (1963), Eberhart and Russel (1966). Data

were analysed by TARİST, MİNİTAB software.

3. Result and Discussion

The results of analysis of variance over three years for yield and yield components

investigated are presented in table 2.

Table 2: Analysis of variance for yield and yield components over three years.

D.F. Days to heading

(day) Grain filling period (day)

Flag leaf area (cm2)

Plant height (cm)

Spike length (cm)

Replication 3 1.590** 0.317ns 10.236ns 28.326ns 0.877ns

Year 2 5017.731** 155.557** 291.255** 18450.393** 48.487** Error-1 6 0.074 0.324 3.038 20.513 0.918 Irrigation 1 0.004ns 26.095** 323.235** 86.105ns 14.383** Year x Irrigation 2 22.663** 3.527ns 305.755** 2859.352** 6.155** Error-2 9 1.797 2.170 7.570 151.498 0.226 Genotype 10 73.407** 44.779** 105.036** 1975.494** 1.719** Year x Genotype 20 14.210** 31.553** 23.558** 68.339** 1.014** Irrigation x Genotype 10 8.204** 11.370** 27.417** 51.235** 0.446** Year x Irrigation x Genotype

20 2.575** 3.939** 15.672** 55.480** 0.884**

Error 180 0.258 0.324 6.134 6.145 0.095 Mean 263 42.967 6.450 18.432 259.037 0.800 C.V. (%): 3.228 4.256 12.633 11.674 10.231

D.F. Spike weight (g) Number of grain

per spike Grain weight per

spike (g) Harvest index

(%)

Grain yield

(t/ha) Replication 3 0.051ns 9.102ns 0.020ns 30.287ns 0.543

Year 2 5.732** 83.396** 2.245** 4094.902** 40.588 Error-1 6 0.041 4.458 0.028 43.556 1.345 Irrigation 1 2.704** 50.042** 0.927** 4.669ns 3.239ns Year x Irrigation 2 0.111ns 48.606** 0.107ns 337.456ns 11.540** Error-2 9 0.126 4.689 0.050 93.161 1.296 Genotype 10 1.221** 370.842** 0.864** 140.683** 4.169** Year x Genotype 20 0.254** 70.200** 0.178** 57.157* 1.839** Irrigation x Genotype 10 0.295** 61.527** 0.152** 77.367** 0.303ns Year x Irrigation x Genotype

20 0.206** 51.046** 0.158** 41.603ns 0.338ns

Error 180 0.014 4.103 0.008 27.970 0.223 Mean 263 0.163 30.028 0.093 73.195 2.734 C.V. (%): 12.354 8.452 9.576 14.288 15.528 *: p<0.05 at significance, **: p<0.01 at significance, ns: not significant.

Effects of year on genotypes and variations between genotypes were found to be

significant for all characteristics. Effect of irrigation except heading date and harvest index, were

significant for the other parameters. Besides, interactions between factors were significant of 1%.

These mean that variations in all factors were different. Blum (1986) stated that many studies

have been carried out under different prevailing climatic conditions and agronomic applications,




7

significant interactions between factors and their interactions could naturally be expected.

Moreover, means of yield components are given in table 3.

Table 3: Means of yield components over three years.

ESOGUZFE-5 204.08b 205.67b 204.88b 58.33e 57.17j 57.75f 27.08ac 29.16bc 28.12b ESOGUZFE-4 205.25a 206.25a 205.75a 58.58e 57.67ij 58.13f 26.61bd 28.96c 27.79bc ESOGUZFE-3 201.50d 201.00gh 201.25g 61.33b 60.58bc 60.96b 29.19ab 31.72ab 30.45a

Values with same letter in one column are not significantly different from each other.

Average heading date and grain fillings period were 203.05 day and 59.67 day,

respectively. Ranges between genotypes in heading date and grain fillings period were 201.5-

206.25 days and 57.17-62.75 days, respectively. The highest heading date was taken from

ESOGUZFE-4 genotype (205.25 in irrigated, 206.25 non-irrigated and 205.75 average) whereas

the lowest one belonged to Bezostaja-1 (200.17 in irrigated, 200.67 in non-irrigated and 200.75

average). Grain filling period in irrigated conditions (59.98 days) were longer than non irrigated

Days to heading (day) Grain filling period (day) Flag leaf area (cm2) IR NIR Mean IR NIR Mean IR NIR Mean ESOGUZFE-7 202.67c 203.33e 203.00e 59.83d 58.33gh 59.08de 26.67bc 28.29c 27.48bc ESOGUZFE-6 202.33c 202.08f 202.21f 58.75e 58.67fg 58.71f 29.72a 32.44a 31.08a

ESOGUZEFE-2 204.25b 201.50g 202.88e 60.17cd 61.08b 60.53b 35.87cd 29.49bc 27.68bc DAĞDAŞ-94 200.75e 200.75h 200.75h 60.75bc 59.08ef 59.92c 25.10cd 28.59c 26.84bc FATİMA 203.92b 203.67de 203.79d 58.25e 60.08cd 59.17d 23.99de 28.09c 26.04c BEJOSTAJA-1 200.17f 200.67h 200.42h 61.08b 57.83hi 59.46d 28.80ab 24.95d 26.88bc SÜRAK 203.75b 204.67c 204.21c 60.42cd 59.67de 60.04c 22.05e 24.54d 23.30d KINACI 97 204.83a 204.00d 204.42c 62.33a 62.75a 62.54cd 24.83cd 28.04c 26.44bc

Mean 203.05 203.05 203.05 59.98 a 59.36b 59.67 26.36b 28.57a 27.46 Plant height (cm) Spike height (cm) Spike weight (g)

IR NIR Mean IR NIR Mean IR NIR Mean ESOGUZFE-7 111.85a 108.24b 110.05a 8.81ab 9.47a 9.14a 2.28a 2.58a 2.43a ESOGUZFE-6 92.94d 96.92e 94.93d 8.9a 9.41ab 9.15a 2.22a 2.39b 2.31b ESOGUZFE-5 111.58a 105.98bc 108.78ab 8.63ac 8.71ef 8.67b 2.19a 2.31b 2.25b ESOGUZFE-4 106.71bc 103.91cd 105.31c 8.76ab 9.25ac 9.00a 2.22a 2.29b 2.25b ESOGUZFE-3 106.32bc 105.02cd 105.67c 8.21df 8.75df 8.48bc 1.78c 1.91d 1.84e ESOGUZFE-2 108.35b 108.14b 108.24ab 8.00f 8.90df 8.45bc 1.90bc 2.12c 2.01d DAĞDAŞ-94 107.32bc 108.38b 107.84b 8.76ab 9.08bd 8.92a 1.80bc 1.81d 1.81ef FATİMA 81.58e 80.84g 81.21e 8.67ab 8.64f 8.65b 2.21a 2.05c 2.13c BEJOSTAJA-1 105.33c 102.78d 104.05c 8.50bd 8.84df 8.67b 1.85bc 2.12c 1.99d SÜRAK 108.45b 111.33a 109.89a 8.33ce 8.97ce 8.65b 1.38d 2.07c 1.73f KINACI 97 95.38d 91.73f 93.54d 8.08ef 8.75df 8.41c 1.91b 2.33b 2.12c Mean 103.25 102.11 102.68 8.51b 8.98a 8.74 1.98b 2.18a 2.08 Number of grain per spike Grain weight per spike (g) Harvest index (%) IR NIR Mean IR NIR Mean IR NIR Mean ESOGUZFE-7 39.32a 42.08a 40.7a 1.8a 1.93a 1.86a 27.46ad 27.42ac 27.44bd ESOGUZFE-6 37.88ab 36.83c 37.35bc 1.71ab 1.69bc 1.70b 29.68ab 29.36ac 29.52ab ESOGUZFE-5 36.3bc 36.78c 36.54c 1.66b 1.75b 1.71a 28.3ad 23.84c 26.07bd ESOGUZFE-4 35.88bd 34.01df 34.94d 1.66b 1.67bc 1.66bc 22.94d 26.21c 24.57cd ESOGUZFE-3 30.96e 31.88fg 31.42e 1.36c 1.42f 1.39f 29.42ab 26.62bc 28.03bc ESOGUZFE-2 34.92cd 34.56de 34.74d 1.42c 1.49ef 1.45ef 23.62cd 24.10c 23.86c DAĞDAŞ-94 31.07e 29.33h 30.2e 1.32c 1.29g 1.31g 28.78ac 25.21c 26.99bd FATİMA 37.63ab 36.15cd 36.89bc 1.64b 1.62cd 1.63c 32.85a 32.23ab 32.54a BEJOSTAJA-1 33.78d 33.55eg 33.67d 1.36c 1.56de 1.46e 24.04bd 28.45ac 26.24bd SÜRAK 22.47f 31.58g 27.02f 0.98d 1.48ef 1.23h 27.71ad 26.67bc 27.19bd KINACI 97 36.67bc 39.71b 38.19b 1.39c 1.65bc 1.52d 25.47bd 33.06a 29.26ab

Mean 34.26b 35.13a 34.70 1.48b 1.60a 1.54 27.30 27.56 27.43




8

(59.36 days). Kınacı 97 had the highest grain filling period (62.33 days in irrigated, 62.75 days in

non irrigated and 62.54 days average). ESOGUZFE-5 gave lowest grain filling period with 58.33

days in irrigated, 57.17 days in non irrigated and 57.75 days in average. Heading date related to

all wheat chromosomes, but Vrn, Ppd, Gps genes are known as the most related genes (Law et.

al., 1978; Worland and Sayers, 1995). Heading date and grain fillings period are variable and

two important components. Both are and are controlled by genotypic and environmental factors

and more influenced by rainfall and temperature. (Bruckner and Frohberg, 1987; Pireivatlou et

al., 2011; Heidari et. al., 2012).

Flag leaves is a significant source of photosynthesis and makes up more than 70 % of

efficient leaf area contributing grain filling (Morgan and Austin 1983; Loss and Siddique, 1994;

Turner 1997). Existing winter wheat plant height in many countries including Turkey ranges

from 70-100 cm (Halloran, 1975; Joshi et al., 2002; Doğan, 2002) and together with another

plant characteristics, it could play effective role for yield (Genç, 1978; Gençtan and Sağlam,

1987;Bilgin, 1997). However Jaradat et al., (1996) reported that plant height caused reduction

grain yield due to negative correlation with grain yield.

There were significant differences in phenotypic means for flag leaf area and plant

height. Flag leaf area in non-irrigated conditions (28.57 cm2) was higher than irrigated conditions

(26.36 cm2). ESOGUZFE-6 genotype had the highest flag leaf area in irrigated conditions (29.72

cm²) non-irrigated conditions (32.44 cm2) and mean (31.08 cm2). Sürak was the lowest ones

(22.05 cm2 in irrigated, 24.54 cm2 in non-irrigated and 23.30 cm2 in mean). ESOGUZFE-7

irrigated conditions (111.85 cm) and in mean (110.05 cm2). Sürak in non-irrigated conditions

(11.33 cm) were the tallest genotype. The lowest plant height belonged to Fatıma (in irrigated

81.58 cm) and Kınacı-97 (91.70 cm in non-irrigated and 93.54 cm in mean). Spike length and

weight, grain number and weights are essential plan characteristics and are significantly affected

from stress conditions, particularly water stress (Genç, 1978; Gebeyahu et al., 1982; Bilgin,

1997). Non-irrigated conditions with 8.98 cm had the longer spike length than irrigated ones

(5.51 cm). More amount of rainfall together with irrigation must have made reduction in spike

length.

ESOGUZFE-6 in irrigated (8.90 cm) and mean (9.15 cm), ESOGUZFE-7 in non-irrigated

conditions (9.47 cm) gave the highest values whereas ESOGUZFE-2 in irrigated (8.76 cm)

Fatıma in non-irrigated (8.64 cm) and Kınacı-97 in mean (8.41 cm) had the lowest spike length.

Spike weight between genotypes ranged from 1.38 g to 2.58 g. Likewise, more spike weight in

non-irrigated conditions (2.18 g) were taken and it was 1.98 g in irrigated conditions.




9

ESOGUZFE-7 had the heaviest spike weight with 2.28 g in irrigated, 2.58 g in non-irrigated

conditions and 2.43 g in mean. The lowest values were taken from Sürak in irrigated conditions

(1.38 g) and mean (1.73), from Dağdaş-94 (1.81 g) in non-irrigated conditions.

Number of grain per spike and grain weight per spike are play important role in

determining the fate of grain yield under stress conditions Both characteristics are significantly

sensitively formed by stress conditions (Gebeyahu et al., 1982; Ferris et. al., 1998). Higher

rainfall and water supply decreased grain number and weight per spike. This could explain why

data in no irrigated conditions are higher. Grain numbers and grain weights non-irrigated and

irrigated plots were 35.13, 34.26, and 1.60 g and 1.48 g, respectively. Variations between

genotypes ranged from 42.08 to 29.33 in grain number per spike. ESOGUZFE-7 had the highest

grain weight per spike and grain weight per spike in irrigated, non-irrigated conditions and mean

as 39.32, 42.04, 40.70, and 1.8 g, 1.93 g, 1.86 g, respectively. Moreover, Sürak in irrigated

conditions (22.47 in number of grains per spike and 0.98 g in grain weight per spike), non-

irrigated conditions (31.58 in number of grains per spike and 1.48 g in grain weight per spike)

and mean (27.02 in number of grains per spike and 1.23 g in grain weight per spike) had the

lowest number of grains and grain weight per spike. Porter and Gawith (1999) and Farooq et. al.

(2009) stressed that the effect of water stress including water deficit and excess water and

temperature speeds up plant development and reduces grain number and weight.

Variations in genotypes for harvest index were between 22.94 % and 33.06 %. Harvest

index is defined as trait representing useful indicator for plant productivity (Donald, 1962;

Tosun, 1986; Şener et al., 1997). Besides it is well preferred by breeding programs (Dalal et. al.,

1995). Fatıma in irrigated conditions (32.85 %) and mean (32.54 %), Kınacı-97 in non-irrigated

conditions (33.06 %) gave the highest harvest index. The lowest ones belonged to ESOGUZFE-4

(22.94 % in irrigated conditions), ESOGUZFE-5 (23.84 % in non-irrigated conditions) and

ESOGUZFE-2 (23.86 % in mean). Means of grain yield over 3 years are given in table 4.

Yield is resultant of genetic capacity, environmental conditions and agronomic practices

as a complex trait, it is also affected from yield components (Doğan, 2002; Pireivatlou et al.,

2011); therefore yield and yield components could be considered and studied in breeding

programs (Carew et al., 2009). Differences between genotypes, year x genotype and year x

applications in interactions were found as significant at 1 % (table 1).




10

Table 4: Means of grain yield components over three years (t/ha).

2009-2010 Yield (t/ha) 2010-2011 Yield (t/ha) IR Non-IR Mean IR Non-IR Mean

ESOGUZFE–7 3.22 3.52 3.37ac 2.99 2.92 2.96bc ESOGUZFE–6 3.05 4.04 3.55ab 4.63 3.91 4.27a ESOGUZFE–5 2.92 3.52 3.22ac 3.42 2.49 2.95bc ESOGUZFE–4 2.73 3.16 2.95bc 3.47 2.34 2.91bc ESOGUZFE–3 3.45 4.08 3.76a 2.76 2.20 2.48c ESOGUZFE–2 2.80 3.49 3.14ac 2.75 2.46 2.61c DAGDAS-94 3.45 4.04 3.74a 2.97 2.11 2.54c FATIMA 3.42 4.16 3.79a 4.34 4.89 4.62a BEZOSTAJA-1 3.10 3.82 3.46ab 4.29 2.65 3.47b SÜRAK 2.51 3.09 2.80c 1.73 1.39 1.55d KINACI-97 3.28 4.04 3.66a 4.55 3.77 4.16a Mean 3.08b 3.72a 3.41a 3.44a 2.82b 3.14b

2011-2012 Yield (t/ha) Mean Yield (t/ha) IR Non-IR Mean IR Non-IR Mean

ESOGUZFE–7 2.83 2.44 2.18 3.09 2.88 2.99bc ESOGUZFE–6 3.36 2.17 2.32 3.77 3.28 3.52ab ESOGUZFE–5 3.36 2.13 2.29 3.13 2.82 2.97bc ESOGUZFE–4 2.37 2.08 1.78 2.63 2.76 2.69cd ESOGUZFE–3 2.83 2.54 2.24 3.04 2.91 2.97bc ESOGUZFE–2 2.61 2.30 2.01 2.85 2.62 2.74c DAGDAS-94 3.10 2.30 2.25 3.08 2.91 2.99bc FATIMA 2.88 2.26 2.12 3.98 3.34 3.67a BEZOSTAJA-1 2.88 2.30 2.14 3.12 3.23 3.17ac SÜRAK 2.48 2.08 1.83 2.32 2.10 2.21d KINACI-97 3.05 2.13 2.14 3.62 3.32 3.47ab Mean 2.89 a 2.25 b 2.12 c 3.15 2.93 3.04

Year x application on interaction was found to be significant. Since, yield in non-irrigated

conditions was higher than irrigated conditions in 2009-2010 whereas in the other two years it

was higher in irrigated conditions. Rainfall in November, December and June in 2009-2010 were

so higher than long-term rainfall. More rainfall together with irrigation must have been caused

decrease on yield in irrigated plots in that year. This explains why yield is lower in irrigated

conditions. Besides, yearly variations between genotypes made year x genotypes interaction

significant. It was reported that wheat development is more sensitive of environmental

conditions including drought, excess water in first development before winter and in grain filling

period (Blum et al. 1994; Cruz-Aguado et al. 2000; Gooding et al. 2003).

Mean grain yield in 2009-2010 season (3.41 t/ha) was higher than those of 2010-2011

(3.14 t/ha) and 2011-2012 (2.12 t/ha) seasons. Grain yield on irrigated conditions (3.08 t/ha) in

2009-2010 season was lower than that of non-irrigated conditions (3.72 t/ha). Besides, grain

yields on irrigated conditions in 2010-2011 season (3.44 t/ha) and in 2011-2012 season (2.89

t/ha) were found to be higher as compared to that of non-irrigated conditions. Together with




11

irrigation, more rainfall in November, December and June in 2009-2010 season made grain yield

lowed in irrigated conditions. There were no significant differences between genotypes in 2011-

2012 season for grain yield. The highest grain yields in 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 growing

season were taken from Fatıma (3.79 ton/ha) and ESOGUZFE-6 (4.27 ton/ha) respectively.

Sürak gave the lowest yields in both season with 2.80 ton/ha and 1.55 ton/ha. As means of three

years, Fatıma (3.67 ton/ha) and ESOGUZFE-6 (3.52 t/ha) had the highest yielding genotypes,

however the lowest one belonged to Sürak with 2.21 ton/ha.

Table 4 shows that genotypes significantly differed for grain yield. The presence of vast

genetic variability in genotypes creates opportunity to select superior genotypes (Panayotov,

2000; Weikai and Hunt, 2001). Besides, stress conditions particularly drought (Fan et. al., 2008),

or excess water (Setter and Waters, 2003) play important role to form plant growth and

development and determines final grain yield. It was stressed that yield components including

grain yield are significantly decreased by water deficit (Blum et al., 1989; Blum, 1996).

However, in our study, though yield of non-irrigated conditions was higher than irrigated

conditions in year of 2009-2010, yield in years of 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 were higher in

irrigated conditions. Rainfall in November, December and June in 2009-2010 were so higher

than long-term rainfall. Bread wheat is more sensitive of environmental conditions including

drought (Blum et al. 1994; Cruz-Aguado et al. 2000; Gooding et al. 2003) excess water (Seter

and Waters, 2003) especially in flowering stage and grain filling period. Such formation could

make yield lower in irrigated conditions than that of non-irrigated ones.

Aim of breeding programs is to develop new yield yielding and stabile genotypes having

higher quality in various climates locations (Barkley and Nalley, 2007). Stability measures

adaptability of genotypes having high yield with low variations in various environments and

joint regression analysis is one of the most used methods in evaluating stability of grain yield

(Eberhard and Russel, 1966; Finley and Wilkinson, 1963).

Regression coefficient (b) and mean departure from regression (s2d) describe stability of

genotypes. Having high value of r and s2d genotype with low yield is unstable assigning that it is

highly variable for environmental conditions or yearly fluctuations. If genotype with high mean

yield has regression coefficient close to 1 and departure from regression (s2d ) near to 0, it is

highly stable and well adapted (Peterson et al., 1997; Arain et al., 2011). Genotype is highly

sensitive to environmental changes and greater adaptability to high yielding environments,

whether regression coefficient (b)>1. If regression coefficient<1, indicating that genotype shows

greater resistance to environmental changes and it is greater performance to low yielding




12

environments/years (Blum, 1986; Amin et. al., 2005; Carew et al., 2009). Stability performances

of genotypes for grain yield were tested and were given in table 5 and figure 1.

In irrigated conditions, ESOGUZFE-6, Fatima and Kınacı-97 genotypes had yield about

mean. ESOGUZFE-6 with 3.77 ton/ha grain yield, b= 1.23 and s2d= 1.45 showed better stability

and greater specify to high yielding environments. Fatıma (3.98 ton/ha, b= 0.83, s2d= 3.05) and

Kınacı-97 (3.62 ton/ha, b= 0.97, s2d= 1.89) had better resistance to environmental changes and

greater adaptability to low yielding environments. In non-irrigated conditions ESOGUZFE-6

(3.28 ton/ha), Fatıma (3.34 ton/ha), Bezostaja-1 (3.23 ton/ha) and Kınacı-97 e (3.32 ton/ha)

genotypes gave higher grain yield above the mean. Only Bezostaja-1 with b= 1.14 and s2d= 0.65

showed the best stability. ESOGÜZFE-6 (b= 0.44 and s2d= 1.45), Fatıma (b= 0.44 and s2d=

3.67) and Kınacı-94 (b= 0.44 and s2d= 1.15) had more resistant to environmental changes and

well per formed in low yielding environments.

Mean results indicated that ESOGUZFE-6, Fatıma, Bezostaja-1 and Kınacı-97 with grain

yield above average, regression, coefficient close to 1 and s2d close to zero are well adapted and

stabile genotypes across the different environmental conditions. Yield components are important

characters in wheat related studies and genotype environment interaction have been considered

(Sial et al., 2007). Success of studies including breeding programs is strongly originated from

understanding of genotypic potentials and their interactions with environment (Dahl et al., 1999).

Sial et. al. (2007), Altay (2012) and Sabaghnia et al. (2012) stated that yield and yield

components are under affected of genotypic properties and environmental factors, stability

performance of genotypes is well performed by rank analysis that is based on modified

interaction theory (Van der Laan, 1987; Huehn, 1996; Özberk et al., 2004). Rank stability means

that having high level rank and low deviation from regression, genotype is said to be stabile

(Özbek and Özbek, 2002). Rank stability of genotypes for yield components are given in table 5

and figure 1.




13

Table 5: Stability performances of genotypes for grain yield (X: Mean yield, b: regression coefficient, s2d: deviation from regression).

Genotypes

Irrigated Conditions

Non-irrigated Conditions

Mean

x B Dev. From Reg. S2d

x b Dev. From

Reg. S2d

x b Dev. From

Reg. S2d

ESOGUZFE–7 3.09

0.99 0.29

2.88 1.22

0.29 2.99

0.76 0.0

ESOGUZFE–6 3.77

1.23 1.45

3.28 0.44

1.45 3.52

1.30 0.3

ESOGUZFE–5 3.13

1.4 0.40

2.82 0.99

0.40 2.97

0.89 0.1

ESOGUZFE–4 2.63

0.65 0.27

2.76 1.01

0.27 2.69

0.97 0.1

ESOGUZFE–3 3.04

0.98 1.19

2.91 1.62

1.19 2.97

0.89 0.3

ESOGUZFE–2 2.85

0.91 0.29

2.62 1.23

0.29 2.74

0.77 0.0

DAGDAS-94 3.08 1.16 1.01 2.91 1.34 1.01 2.99 0.98 0.3 FATIMA 3.98 0.83 3.05 3.34 0.15 3.05 3.67 1.33 0.7 BEZOSTAJA-1 3.12

0.9 0.65

3.23 1.14

0.65 3.17

1.21 0.1

SÜRAK 2.32 0.98 1.89 2.10 1.4 1.89 2.21 0.52 0.3 KINACI-97 3.62 0.97 1.15 3.32 0.44 1.15 3.47 1.38 0.2 Mean 3.15 1.00 2.92 1.00 3.04 1.00

Irrigated Conditions Non-Irrigated Conditions Mean

ESOGUZFE-4

ESOGUZFE-2ESOGUZFE-7

ESOGUZFE-3

BEZOSTAJA-1

FATIMA

KINACI-97

SÜRAKESOGUZFE-6

DAGDAS-94

ESOGUZFE-5

0

0,5

1

1,5

2 2,5 3 3,5 4

Yield (t/ha)

b

ESOGUZFE-5

ESOGUAFE-4

SÜRAK

KINACI-97ESOGUZFE-6

FATIMA

ESOGUZFE-2

ESOGUZFE-3

DAGDAS-94

ESOGUZFE-7

BEZOSTAJA-1

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2 2,5 3 3,5 4

Yield (t/ha)

b

Figure 1: Stability performances of genotypes for grain yield.

ESOGZFE-3 determined as stabile genotypes. Besides ESOGÜZFE-7 and Sürak in plant

height, ESOGÜZFE-6 and ESOGÜZFE-7 in spike length ESOGÜZFE-6 and ESOGÜZFE-3

were found as stabile. While ESOGÜZFE-6 in spike weight grain number and grain weight per

spike had highest stability, Fatıma and ESOGÜZFE-6 seemed stabile genotypes in harvest index.

Moreover, previous stability performances of genotypes draw similar trend in rank stability for

yield. ESOGÜZFE-6 and Fatima were determined as the most stabile genotypes (table 6).




14

Table 6: Rank stability of genotypes for yield components. Genotypes

Days to heading Grain filling period Flag leaf area Plant height

Spike length Spike weight

IR NoIR Mean S2d IR NoIR Mean S2

d IR NoIR Mean S2d IR NoIR Mean S2


d

ESOGUZFE–7

7 6

6.5

0.8 7 8

7.5

0.3 5 7

6

6.8 1 3

2

16.6 2 1

1.5

0.3 1 1

1

0.1

ESOGUZFE–6

8 7

7.5

0 8 7

7.5

0.4 1 1

1

3.1 10 9

9.5

49.3 1 2

1.5

0.2 2 2

2

0

ESOGUZFE–5

4 2

3

1 10 11

10.5

1.2 4 4

4

0.2 2 5

3.5

9.7 6 10

8

0.2 5 4

4.5

0

ESOGUZFE–4

1 1

1

0.9 9 10

9.5

1.2 6 5

5.5

1 6 7

6.5

9 4 3

3.5

0.2 3 5

4

0.1

ESOGUZFE–3

9 9

9

0.2 2 3

2.5

0.4 2 2

2

1.1 7 6

6.5

9.3 9 8

8.5

0.2 10 10

10

0

ESOGUZFE–2

3 8

5.5

4.2 6 2

4

3.4 7 3

5

0.7 4 4

4

1 11 6

8.5

0.2 7 6

6.5

0

DAGDAS-94 10 10

10

0.1 4 6

5

0.4 8 6

7

1.3 5 2

3.5

5 3 4

3.5

0.1 9 11

10

0

FATIMA 5 5

5

0.3 11 4

7.5

2.1 10 8

9

0.5 11 11

11

11.8 5 11

8

0.2 4 9

6.5

0.1

BEZOSTAJA-1

11 11

11

0.6 3 9

6

1.3 3 10

6.5

4.2 8 8

8

7.9 7 7

7

0 8 7

7.5

0

SURAK 6 3

4.5

0.4 5 5

5

0.2 11 11

11

5.7 3 1

2

15.1 8 5

6.5

0.4 11 8

9.5

0.2

KINACI-97 2 4

3

0.4 1 1

1

0.6 9 9

9

0.7 9 10

9.5

8.8 10 9

9.5

0.2 6 3

4.5

0

Genotypes

Number of grain per spike Grain weight per spike Harvest index Grain yield Mean

IR NoIR Mean S2d IR NoIR Mean S2


d IR NoIR Mean S2d

ESOGUZFE–7 1 1

1

21.8 1 1

1

21.8 7 5

6

1.9 8 5

6.5 0.29

4 3.8

3.9 4.89 ESOGUZFE–6 2 3

2.5

8.6 2 3

2.5

8.6 2 3

2.5

1.5 1 2

1.5 1.45

3.7 3.9

3.8 6.46 ESOGUZFE–5 5 4

4.5

1.8 5 4

4.5

1.8 5 11

8

15.2 4 9

6.5 0.4

4.8 6.2

5.5 2.97 ESOGUZFE–4 6 7

6.5

21.5 6 7

6.5

21.5 11 8

9.5

6.4 10 10

10 0.27

6 6

6 4.06 ESOGUZFE–3 10 9

9.5

1.5 10 9

9.5

1.5 3 7

5

6.5 7 4

5.5 1.19

6.8 6.8

6.8 2.04 ESOGUZFE–2 7 6

6.5

8.1 7 6

6.5

8.1 10 10

10

12.2 9 8

8.5 0.29

7 6.1

6.55 3.01 DAGDAS-94 9 11

10

6.8 9 11

10

6.8 4 9

6.5

11.1 6 7

6.5 1.01

6.8 7.7

7.25 2.58 FATIMA 3 5

4

29.5 3 5

4

29.5 1 2

1.5

14.6 3 1

2 3.05

5.8 6.2

6 6.23 BEZOSTAJA-1 8 8

8

0.6 8 8

8

0.6 9 4

6.5

12.1 5 6

5.5 0.65

7 7.7

7.35 2.74 SURAK 11 10

10.5

48.1 11 10

10.5

48.1 6 6

6

4.4 11 11

11 1.89

8.3 6.9

7.6 7.65 KINACI-97 4 2

3

6.2 4 2

3

6.2 8 1

4.5

32.4 2 3

2.5 1.15

5.8 4.7

5.25 5.05 Irrigated Conditions Non-Irrigated Conditions Mean

As an average of all yield components rank stability of genotypes for irrigated and non-

irrigated conditions mean were given in Figure 2. ESOGÜZFE-5, Kınacı-97, Fatima and

ESOGÜZFE-6 genotypes in irrigated conditions; ESOGÜZFE-6, ESOGÜZFE-7 and Kınacı-97

genotypes in non-irrigated conditions showed up stabile genotypes. Mean of irrigated and non-

irrigated conditions, ESOGÜZFE-6 and ESOGÜZFE-7 genotypes were stabile genotypes (figure

2).




15

DAGDAS-94

ESOGUZFE-3

BEZOST AJA-1

ESOGUZFE-2

SÜRAK

ESOGUZFE-4KINACI-97

FAT IMA

ESOGUZFE-5

ESOGUZFE-7

ESOGUZFE-6

3 5 7 9

Mean Rank

Dev

iati

on

fro

m R

egre

ssio

n S

2d

ESOGUZFE-3

ESOGUZFE-4

DAGDAS-94

FATIMA

SÜRAK

KINACI-97ESOGUZFE-7

ESOGUZFE-6

BEZOSTAJA-1ESOGUZFE-5

ESOGUZFE-2

1

3

5

7

9

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Mean Rank

Dev

iati

on

fro

m R

egre

ssio

n S

2d

KINACI-97

SÜRAK

FAT IMA

BEZOST AJA-1

DAGDAS-94

ESOGUZFE-2

ESOGUZFE-3

ESOGUZFE-4

ESOGUZFE-5

ESOGUZFE-7

ESOGUZFE-6

2

4

6

8

2 4 6 8

Mean Rank

Dev

iati

on f

om R

egre

ssio

n S2

d

Figure 2: Rank stability of genotypes for yield components in irrigated, non-irrigated

conditions and mean.

As a result, Fatıma, ESOGUZFE-6, ESOGUZFE-7, Bezostaja-1 were high yielding and

stabile genotypes under different climatic conditions over three years. Moreover, yield and yield

components are taken form by genetic capacity and environmental factors (Farooq et al., 2009;

Mohammed, 2009; Altay, 2012). Especially crop growth and photosynthesis are closely related

to water availability (Blum, 1986; Blum et al., 1989; Doğan, 2002). Relationship between yield

and yield components for genotypic variability is so vital. Such genotypes were determined as

promising materials to be used in breeding programs to develop novel genotypes.

4. References AGGARWAL, P.K; SİNGH, A.K. Implications of global climatic change on water and food

security. In: Ringler C et al (eds) Global changes, impact on water and food security. Springer,

Heidelberg, p 49-63, 2010.

ALTAY. F. Yield stability of some Turkısh winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes in

the western transitional zone of Turkey. Turkish J. Field Crops. Vol. 17, 2, p. 129-134, 2012.

ANONYMOUS. http://www.tmo.gov.tr 05/06/2012, 2012a.

ANONYMOUS. http://www.tmo.gov.tr/Upload/Document/ bultenler/2012/ hubbultn

04062012.pdf., 2012b.

ARAİN, M.A.; SİAL, M.A.; RAJPUT, M.A.; MİRBAHAR, A,A. Yield stability in bread wheat

genotypes. Pak. J. Bot. Vol. 43, n. 4, p. 2071-2074, 2011.




16

BARKLEY, A.; NALLEY, L.L. Yield Stability in Kansas Wheat Varieties, 1977–2006. selected

paper at the Western Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Portland, OR, July

29-August 1, 2007.

BAYANER, A. Wheat Sector in Turkey, Final Report. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural

Affairs, Research Planning and Coordination Council, 2002.

BECK, E,H.; FETİTİG, S.; KNAKE, C.; HARTİG, K.; BHATTARAİ, T. Specific and

unspecific responses of plants to cold and drought stress. J. Biosci. Vol. 32, p. 501-510, 2007.

BEDO, Z.; LANG, L. Wheat Database of Agric.Res. Inst. Martonvasar, Hungary, 2005.

BILGIN, A.Y. The effect of different tiller numbers on yield and yield components in three

bread wheat cultivars. Trakya Univ. Institute of Sci. Field Crops Dept. M.Sc. Thesis. 55p, 1997.

BLUM, A. The effect of heat stress on wheat leaf and ear photosynthesis. J. Exp. Bot. Vol. 37, p.

111-118, 1986.

BLUM, A.; GOLAN, G.; MAYER, J,; SINMENA, B.; SHPILER, L.; BURRA, J. The drought

response of landraces of wheat from the northern Negev desert in Israel. Euphytica, Vol. 43, p.

87-96, 1989.

BLUM, A.; SİNMENA, B.; MAYER, G.; GOLAN, G.; SHPİLER, L. Stem reserve mobilization

supports wheat-grain filling under heat stress. Aust. J. Plant Physiol.Vol. 21, p. 771–781, 1994.

BLUM, A. Yield potential and drought tolerance, are they mutually exclusive? In M.P. BLUM,

A. Drought resistance, water-use efficiency, and yield potential-are they compatible, dissonant,

or mutually exclusive? Australian J. Agric.Res. Vol. 56, p. 1159-1168, 2005.

BRUCKNER, P.L.; FROHBERG, R.C. Rate and duration of grain fill in spring wheat. Crop Sci.

Vol. 27, n. 451-455, 1987.




17

BYERLEE, D.; MAYA, P. Impacts of International Wheat Breeding Research in the Developing

World,1960-90. Mexico, D.F.: CIMMYT, 1993.

CAREW, R.; ELWİN, G.S.; CYNTHİA, G. Factors Influencing Wheat Yield and Variability:

Evidence from Manitoba. Canada. J. Agric.and Applied Econ, Vol. 41, n. 3, p. 625-639, 2009.

CRUZ-AGUADO, JA, RODES, R.; PEREZ, I.P.; DORADO, M. Morphological characteristics

and yield components associated with accumulation and loss of dry matter in internodes of

wheat. Field Crops Res. Vol. 66, p. 129-139, 2000.

DAHL, B.L.; WİLSON, W.W.; WİLSON, W.W. Factors Affecting Spring Wheat Choices:

Comparisons Between Canada and the United States. Can. J. Agric. Econ. Vol. 47, p. 305-320,

1999.

DALAL, S.K.; YUNUS, M.; SİNGH, S. Comparison of some selection criteria in two spring

wheat crosses. Indian J. Genetics and Plant Breeding. Vol. 55, p. 90-93, 1995.

DOĞAN, R. Determination of Grain Yield and Some Agronomic Characters of Bread Wheat

(Triticum aestivum L.) Lines. J. Uludağ Univ. Agric. Fac. Vol. 16, n. 2, p. 149-158, 2002.

DONALD, C.M. In search of yield. J. Aust. Inst.Agric. Sci. Vol. 28, p. 171-178, 1968.

EBERHART, S.A.; RUSSELL, W.A. Stability parameters for comparing varieties. Crop Sci.

Vol. 6, p.36-40, 1966..

EVANS, L.T.; FISHER, R.A. Yield potential: Its definition, measurement, and significance.

Crop Sci. Vol. 39, p. 1544-1551, 1999.

FAN, X.W.; Lİ, F.M.; XİONG, Y.C.; AN, L.Z.; LONG, R.J. The cooperative relations between

non-hydraulic root signals and osmotic adjustment under water stress improves grain formation

for spring wheat varieties. Physiol. Plant. Vol. 132, p. 283-292, 2008.




18

FAROOQ, M.; WAHİD, A.; KOBAYASHİ, N.; FUJİTA, D.; BASRA, S.M.A. Plant drought

stress: effects, mechanisms and management. Argon. Sustain Dev. Vol. 29,p. 185–212, 2009.

FERRİS, R.; ELLİS, R.H.; WHEELER, T.R.; HADLEY, P. Effect of high temperature stress at

anthesis on grain yield and biomass of field-grown crops of wheat. Annals of Bot. Vol. 82, p.

631-639, 1998.

FİNLAY, K.W.; WİLKİNSON, G.N. The analysis of adaptation in a plant breeding programme.

Austral. J. Agr. Res. Vol. 14, p. 742-754, 1963.

GARCİA DEL MORAL, L.F.; GARCİA DEL MORAL, M.B.; MOLİNA-CANO, J.L.;

SLAFER, G.A. Yield stability and development in two- and six-rowed winter barleys under

Mediterranean conditions. Field Crops Res. Vol. 81, p. 109-119, 2003.

GEBEYEHOU, G.; KNOTT, D.R.; BAKER, R.J. Relationships among durations of vegetative

and grain filling phases, yield components and grain yield in durum wheat cultivars. Crop Sci.

Vol. 22, p. 2, p. 287-290, 1982.

GENÇ, İ. The effect of tillers per plant on yield and yield components in Cumhuriyet-75 bread

wheat cultivar.Thesis of Scientific Res. Ç.U. Pub. of Agric. Facul. Vol. 21, p. 127, 1978

GENÇTAN, T.; SAĞLAM, N. The effects of sowing time and sowing density on yield and yield

components in three bread wheat cultivars. TÜBİTAK Turkey Cereal Symposium. Group of

Agriculture and Forestry. 6-9 October.Bursa: p. 171-181, 1987.

GOODİNG, M.J.; ELLİS, R.H.; SHEWRY, P.R.; SCHOFİELD, J.D. Effects of restricted water

availability and increased temperature on the grain filling, drying and quality of winter wheat. J.

Cereal Sci. Vol. 37: p. 295-309, 2003.

GORJANOVİC, B.; KRALJEVİC-BALALİC, M. İnheritance of plant height and spike lenght in

wheat. Genetika. Vol. 37, p. 25-31, 2005.




19

HALLORAN, G.M. Genetic analysis of plant height in wheat. Theo. and Appl. Gen. Vol. 45, n.

8, p. 368-375, 1975.

HEİDARİ, B.; SAEİDİ, G.; TABATABAEİ, B.E.S.; SUENAGA, K. QTLs Involved in Plant

Height, Peduncle Length and Heading Date of Wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.). J. Agr. Sci. Tech.

Vol. 14, p. 1093-1104, 2012.

HUEHN, M. Non-parametric analysis of genotype environment interactions by ranks. In:

Genotype by Environment Interaction (Eds. M.S. Kang and H.G. Gauch), CRC Press. Boca

Raton, FL. p. 213-228, 1996.

JARADAT, A.A.; AJLUNİ, M.M.; KARAKİ, G. Genetic Structure of Durum Wheat Landraces

in a Center of Diversity. 5th International Wheat Conference Abstracts: p. 10-14, 1996.

JOSHI, A.K.; CHAND, R.; ARUN, B. Relationship of plant height and days to maturity with

resistance to spot blotch in wheat. Euphytica. Vol. 123, n. 2, p. 221-228, 2002.

KAFA, I.; KIRTOK, Y. Researches on genotype x environment interactions and adaptation

performances of ten spring wheat cultivars in Cukurova conditions. J. Fac. Agric. Cukurova

Univ. Vol. 5, n. 2, p. 287-295, 1991.

KORKUT, K.Z.; BASER, I. Researches on genotype x environment interactions and stability

parameters of grain yield in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). J. Tekirdag Univ. Agric. Fac.

Vol. 2, n. 2, p. 63-68, 1995.

LAW, C.N.; SNAPE, J.W.; WORLAND, A.J. The genetic relationship between height and yield

in wheat. Heredity, Vol. 40, p. 133-151, 1978.

LOSS, S.P.; SİDDİQUE, K.H.M. Morphological and physiological yield increases in

Mediterranean environments traits associated with wheat. Adv. Agron. Vol. 52, p. 229-276, 1994.




20

MOHAMMED, M.I. Genotype x environment ınteraction in bread wheat in Northern Sudan

using AMMI analysis. American-Eurasian J. Agric. & Environ. Sci. Vol. 6, n. 4, p. 427-433,

2009.

MORGAN, C.L.; AUSTİN, R.B.. Respiratory loss of recently assimilated carbon in wheat. Ann.

Bot. Vol. 51, p. 85-95, 1983.

ÖZBERK, I.; ÖZBERK, F. An assessment of genotype x environment interactions in durum

wheat by rank method. J. AARI. Vol. 12, n. 2, p. 21-34, 2002.

ÖZBERK, I.; ÖZBERK, F.; COŞKUN, Y.; DEMİR, E.; DOĞRU, C. Analysis of genotype x

environment interaction by rank analysis on variety registration trials in durum wheat. J. Agric.

Fac. HR.U. Vol. 8, n. 1, p. 71-77, 2004.

ÖZBERK, I.; ÖZBERK, F.; COŞKUN, Y. The Yieldıng performance and stability of durum

wheat cultivars of Özberk and Urfa-2005. J. Agric. Fac. HR. U. Vol. 9, n. 3, p. 29-34, 2005.

ÖZBERK, I.; KILIÇ, H.; ÖZBERK, F.; ATLI, A.; KARLI, B.; COŞKUN, Y. Variety selection

based on net return per hectare in durum wheat (Triticum durum L.). African Journol of

Agricultural Research, Vol. 6, n. 4, p. 1016-1024, 2011.

PANAYOTOV, I. Strategy of wheat breeding in Bulgaria. Bulg. J. Agric. Sci. Vol. 6, p. 513-523,

2000.

PETERSON, C.J.; MOFFATT, J.M.; ERİCKSON, J.R. Yield stability of hybrids vs. pureline

hard winter wheats in regional performance trials. Crop Sci., Vol. 37, p. 116-120, 1997

PİREİVATLOU, A.G.S.; ALİYEV, R.T.; LALEHLOO, B.S. Grain filling rate and duration in

breadwheat under ırrigated and drought stressed conditions. J. Plant Physiology and Breeding.

Vol. 1, n. 1, p. 69-86, 2011.




21

PORTER J.R.; GAWITH, M. Temperatures and the growth and development of wheat: a review.

European J. Agron. Vol. 10, n. 1, p. 23-36, 1999.

REYNOLDS, S. R.; McNAB, A.E. Increasing Yield Potential in Wheat: Breaking the Barriers.

Workshop Proc., Cd. Obregon, Mexico, p. 28-30 Mar. DF, CIMMYT, 1996..

ROYO, C.; APARİCİO, N.; VİLLEGAS, D,; GARCİA DEL MORAL, L.F.; CASADESUS, J.;

ARAUS, L.J. Tools for improving the effi ciency of durum wheat selection under Mediterranean

conditions. In: Royo C, Nachit MM, Di Fonzo N, Araus JL (Eds.), Durum wheat improvement in

the Mediterranean region: New challenges. Options Méditerraneennes, Serie A: Séminaires

Mediterraneens. Vol. 40, p. 63-70, 2000.

SABAGHNİA, N.; MOHAMMADİ, N.; KARİMİZADEH, R. Interpretation of genotype x

environment interaction in multi-environment trials of bread wheat using cluster analysis. Natura

Montegrina, Podgorica. Vol. 11, n. 3, p. 511-523, 2010.

SETER, T.L; WATERS, I. Review of prospects for germplasm improvement for waterlogging

tolerance in wheat, barley and oats. Plant and Soil. Vol. 253, p. 1-34, 2003.

SHAMSİ, K.; KOBRAEE, S.; RASEKHİ, B. Variation of yield components and some

morphological traits in bread wheat grown under drought stres. Annals of Biol. Res, Vol. 2, n. 2,

p. 372-377, 2011.

SİAL, M.A.; ARAİN, M.A.; AHMAD, M. Genotype x environment interaction on bread wheat

grown over multiple sites and years in Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., Vol. 32, n. 1, p. 85-91, 2000.

SİAL, M.A.; DAHOT, M.U.; MANGRİO, S.M.; NİSA MANGAN, B.; ARAİN, M.A.; NAQVİ,

M.H.; MEMON, S. Genotype x environment interaction for grain yield of wheat genotypestested

under water stress conditions. Sci. Int. Vol. 19, n. 2, p. 133-137, 2007.

ŞENER, O.; KILINÇ, M.; YAĞBASANLAR, T.; GÖZÜBENLİ, H.; KARADAVUT, U.

Determination of some bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L. au.Thell.) ve durum wheat (Triticum




22

durum Desf.) genotypes under Hatay conditions. Turkey II Field Crop Congress. 25-27 Eylül:1-

5. Samsun., 1997.

TOSUN, O. The importance of plant breeding and its contribution to agricultural production.

Plant Breeding Sym. 15-17 October. İzmir: Vol. 55, 1986.

TURNER, N.C. Further progress in crop water relationship. Adv. Agron. Vol. 58, p. 293-338,

1997.

VAN DER LAAN, P. Entensive tables with exact critical values of a distribution free test for

rank-interaction in a two-way layout. Biuletyn oceny odmian, Vol. 12, p. 195-202, 1987.

VARGA, B.; SVECNJAK, Z.; POSPİSİ, A. Grain yield and yield components ofwinter wheat

grown in two management systems. Die Bodenkultur. Vol. 51, n. 3, p. 145-150, 2002.

VİCKİ, L.T . Resistance to biotic and abiotic stress in triticeae. HEREDİTAS. Vol. 135, p. 239–

241, 2001.

VİNOCUR, B.; ALTMAN, A. Recent advances in engineering plant tolerance to abiotic stress:

achievements and limitations. Curr. Opin Biotechnol. Vol. 16, p. 123-132, 2005.

WALBURGER, A.M.; KLEİN, K.K.; FOLKİNS, T.Diffusion of Wheat Varieties in Three

Agrocimatic Zones of Western Canada. Canadian J. Agricultural Econ. Vol. 47, p. 293-304,

1999.

WEİKAİ, Y.; HUNT, L.A. Interpretation of genotype x environment interaction for winter

wheat yield in Ontario. Crop Sci. Vol. 41, p. 19-25, 2001.

WORLAND, A.J.; SAYERS, E.J. Rht (B. dw), an alternative allelic variant for breeding semi-

dwarf wheat varieties. Plant Breeding. Vol. 114, p. 397-400., 1995




23

ZECEVİC, V.; BOSKOVİCİ, J,; DİMİTRİJEVİC, M.; PETROVİC, S. Genetıc and phenotypıc

varıabılıty of yıeld components in wheat (Trıtıcum aestıvum L.). Bulgarian J. Agricultural Sci.

Vol. 16, n. 4, p. 422-428, 2010.

artigo 1 wheat english -...

Documents