| تعداد نشریات | 284 |
| تعداد نشریات سازمان | 82 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 3,049 |
| تعداد مقالات | 34,082 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 46,546,101 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 77,599,425 |
ارزیابی تحمل خشکی در لاین‌های امیدبخش جو در شرایط کنترل شده و مزرعه | ||
| نهال و بذر | ||
| دوره 36، شماره 2، تیر 1399، صفحه 161-182 اصل مقاله (1023.69 K) | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22092/sppi.2020.123185 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| زهرا دهقانی1؛ حمید رضا نیکخواه* 2؛ پیمان فروزش3 | ||
| 1دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد کرج، کرج، ایران. | ||
| 2موسسه تحقیقات اصلاح و تحقیقات اصلاح و تهیه نهال و بذر | ||
| 3گروه زراعت و اصلاح نباتات، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد کرج، ایران. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| به‌منظور ارزیابی واکنش لاین‌های امیدبخش جو به تنش خشکی، دو آزمایش به صورت مجزا در شرایط کنترل شده و مزرعه انجام شد. در شرایط کنترل شده، 25 لاین و رقم جو در دو سطح تنش اسمزی، صفر (شاهد) و 5- مگاپاسکال با استفاده از نمک پلی اتیلن گلیکول 6000 با استفاده از آزمایش فاکتوریل در قالب طرح بلوک‌های کامل تصادفی در سه تکرار مورد ارزیابی قرارگرفتند. تجزیه واریانس داده ها نشان داد که اثر ژنوتیپ، پتانسیل اسمزی و اثر متقابل ژنوتیپ × پتانسل اسمزی بر درصد جوانهزنی، سرعت جوانهزنی، طول کلئوپتیل، وزن ریشه‌چه و شاخص بنیه بذر معنی‌دار بود. با افزایش سطح تنش اسمزی کلیه صفات مورد مطالعه به طور معنی‌دار کاهش نشان دادند. در شرایط مزرعه، 20 لاین جو با استفاده از طرح بلوک‌های کامل تصادفی در سه تکرار در دو شرایط تنش خشکی آخر فصل (قطع آبیاری در 50% سنبله‌دهی) و بدون تنش در دو سال زراعی 96-1395 و 97-1396 مورد ارزیابی قرار گرفتند. تجزیه واریانس مرکب داده‌ها برای عملکرد دانه نشان داد که در هر دو شرایط تنش و بدون تنش اثر سال و اثر متقابل ژنوتیپ × سال معنی دار بود. مقایسه میانگین عملکرد دانه ژنوتیپ ها در شرایط نرمال نشان داد که بیشترین عملکرد دانه مربوط به ژنوتیپ 16 و در شرایط تنش خشکی نیز بیشترین عملکرد مربوط به ژنوتیپ 16 بود. در این آزمایش با استفاده از به عملکرد دانه در دو شرایط تنش و بدون تنش، شاخصهای مختلف تحمل و حساسیت به خشکی محاسبه شدند. بر اساس همبستگی بین شاخصهای مختلف با عملکرد دانه در دو شرایط، شاخصهای میانگین بهره‌وری(MP)، میانگین هندسی(GMP)، شاخص تحمل به خشکی(STI) و شاخص هارمونیک (HM) به عنوان بهترین شاخص‌ها تعیین شدند. بر اساس این شاخص‌ها ژنوتیپ‌های 16، 11 و 4 به عنوان ژنوتیپ‌های برتر در هر دو شرایط شناخته شدند. تجزیه همبستگی بین صفات در مرحله جوانهزنی با شاخصهای تحمل به تنش نشان داد که تنها وزن ریشه‌چه با شاخصهای MP، GMP، HM و STI همبستگی مثبت و معنی‌‌داری داشت. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| جو؛ تنش خشکی؛ جوانهزنی؛ عملکرد دانه؛ شاخصهای تحمل به خشکی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Evaluation of Drought Tolerance in Promising Barley Lines under Controlled and Field Conditions | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Z. Dehghani1؛ H. R. Nikkhah2؛ P. Frouzesh3 | ||
| 1Faculty of Agriculture, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran. | ||
| 2Seed and Plant Improvement Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization, Karaj, Iran. | ||
| 3Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| To evaluate the response of promising barley lines to drought stress, two experiments were carried out separately under controlled and field conditions. Under controlled conditions, 25 barley genotypes were tested at three levels of osmotic stress, zero (control), -5 and -10 MPa using polyethylene glycol 6000 using factorial arrangements in randomized complete block design with three replications. Analysis of variance, for this experiment, showed that the effects of genotype, osmotic potential and osmotic potential × genotype interaction were significant on germination percentage, germination rate, coleoptile length, radical weight and seed vigor index. With increasing osmotic stress, all germination related traits significantly reduced. Under field conditions, 20 barley genotypes were evaluated using randomized complete block design with three replications, under two conditions; terminal drought stress (irrigation cut off at 50% heading) and non-stress in 2016-17 and 2017-2018 cropping seasons. Combined analysis of variance showed that there was significant (P < 0.01) difference among genotypes for grain yield in stress and non-stress conditions. Mean comparison under non-stress conditions showed that the highest grain yield belonged to genotype 16, and under drought stress conditions also genotypes 16 had the highest grain yield. In this experiment, different drought tolerance and susceptibility indices were calculated using grain yield data in stressed and non-stress conditions. Based on correlation between different indices and grain yield in two conditions, the mean productivity (MP), geometric mean productivity (GMP), stress tolerance index (STI) and harmonic mean (HM) were identified as the suitable indices. According to these indices, genotypes 16, 11 and 4 were identified as the superior genotypes in both conditions. Correlation analysis between traits at germination stage with different indices showed that only radicle weight had positive and significant relationship with MP, GMP, HM and STI indices. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Barley, drought stress, germination, grain yield and drought tolerance indices | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Abiri R., Zebarjadi A. R., Ghobadi M., and Kafashi, A. K. 2016. Investigation of drought tolerance of barley genotypes during germination stage using polyethylene glycol. Journal of Plant Research (Iranian Journal of Biology) 29 (2): 395-406 (in Persian).
Abou-Elwafa, S. F. 2016. Association mapping for yield and yield-contributing traits in barley under drought conditions with genome-based SSR markers. Comptes Rendus Biologies 339 (5):153-162.
Ahmed, I. M., Nadira, U. A., Zang, G., and Wu, F. 2016. Exploration, Identification and utilization of drought-tolerant barley germplasm. pp. 115-152. In: Zang, G., and Li, C. (eds.) exploration, identification and utilization of barley germplasm. Zhejiang University Press Co. Ltd. Published by Elsevier Inc. Agrawal, R. L. 2003. Seed technology. Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi., India. 848 pp.
Almansouri, M., Kinet, J. M., and Lutts, S. 2001. Effect of salt and osmotic stresses on germination in durum wheat (Triticum durum Desf.). Plant and Soil 231: 243-254.
Bouslama, M., and Schapaugh, W. T. 1984. Stress tolerance in soybeans. I. evaluation of three screening technique for heat and drought tolerance. Crop Science 24: 933-937.
Cavusoglu, K., and Kabar, K. 2010. Effects of hydrogen peroxide on the germination and early seedling growth of barley under NaCl and high temperature stresses. EurAsian Journal of BioSciences 4: 70-79.
Chaghakaboodi, Z., Zebarjadi, A. R., and Kahrizi, D. 2012. Evaluation of drought tolerance of rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) genotypes in laboratory and field conditions. Seed and Plant Improvement Journal 28 (1): 17-38 (in Persian).
Daryanto, S., Wang, L., and Jacinthe, P. A. 2016. Global synthesis of drought effects on maize and wheat production. PLoS ONE 11: e0156362. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0156362. FAO 2016. FAOSTAT database collections. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Available online at: http://faostat3.fao.org/ (Accessed February 18, 2016).
Farokhi, A., Galeshi, S. A., Zeinali, E., and Abdoulzadeh, A. 2004. Evaluation of drought tolerance genotypes of soybean (Glycine Max. L Merril) in germination stage. Journal of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resource 11 (2): 137-150 (in Persian).
Fernandez, G. C. J. 1992. Effective selection criteria for assessing stress tolerance. pp. 257-270. In: Kuo, C. G. (ed.) proceedings of the international symposium on adaptation of vegetables and other food crops in temperature and water Stress. AVRDC Publication, Taiwan.
Fischer, R., and Maurer, R. 1987. Drought resistant in spring wheat cultivars. I: grain yield response. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 29: 895-97.
Fischer, R. A., and Wood, T. 1979. Drought resistance in spring wheat cultivars ІІІ. yield association with morphological traits. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 30: 1001–1020.
Geravandi, M., Farshadfar, E., and Kahrizi, D. 2010. Evaluation of drought tolerance in bread wheat advanced genotypes in field and laboratory conditions. Seed and Plant Improvement Journal. 26 (2): 233-252 (in Persian).
Golabadi, M., Arzani A., and Mirmohammadi Maibody, S. M. 2006. Assessment of drought tolerance in segregation population in durum wheat. African Journal of Agricultural Research 1: 162-171.
Jafar, M. Z., Farooq, M. Cheema, M. A., Afzal, I., Basra, S. M. A., Wahid, M. A. Aziz, T., and Shahid, M. 2011. Improving the performance of wheat by seed priming under saline conditions. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 14: 1-8.
Lima G. S. D., Gheyi, H. R., Nobre, R. G., Xavier, D. A., and Soares, L. A. D. 2016. Castor bean production and chemical attributes of soil irrigated with water with various cationic composition. Revista Caatinga 29 (1): 54-65.
Mesgaran, M., Madani, K., Hashemi, H., and Azadi, P. 2016. Evaluation of land and precipitation for agriculture in Iran. Working Paper 2, Stanford Iran 2040 Project. Stanford University, December 2016. 28 pp.
Michel, B. E., and Kaufman, M. R. 1973. The osmotic potential of polyethylene glycol 6000. Plant Physiology 5: 914-916.
Mrizova, K., Holaskova, E., Oz, M. T., Jiskrova, E., Frebort, I., and Galuszka, P. 2016. Transgenic barley: a prospective tool for biotechnology and agriculture. Biotechnology Advances 32: 137-157.
Nazari, L., and H. Pakniyat. 2010. Assessment of drought tolerance in barley genotypes. Journal of Applied Science 10: 151- 156.
Özdemir, E., and Sade, B. 2015. Alternative approach for drought tolerance: seed priming and physiology. pp.: 73-78. In: proceedings of international conference on chemical, agricultural and biological sciences. Istanbul, Turkey.
Patade, V. Y., Bhargava, S., and Suprasanna, P. 2009. Halopriming imparts tolerance to salt and PEG induced drought stress in sugarcane. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 134: 24-28.
Pour‐Aboughadareh, A., Yousefian, M., Moradkhani, H., Moghaddam Vahed, M., Poczai, P., and Siddique, K. H. M. 2019. iPASTIC: an online toolkit to estimate plant abiotic stress indices. Applications in Plant Sciences 7 (7): e11278. doi:10.1002/aps3.11278.
Rosielle, A. A., and Hamblin, J. 1981. Theoretical aspects of selection for yield in stress and non-stress environments. Crop Science 21: 943–946.
Pan, X. Y., Wang, Y. F., Wang, G. X., Cao, Q. D., and Wang, J. 2002. Relationship between growth redundancy and size inequality in spring wheat populations mulched with clear plastic film. Acta Phytoecology Sinica 26: 177-184.
Scott, S. J., Jones, R. A., and Willams, W. A. 1984. Review of data analysis methods for seed germination. Crop Science 24: 1192-1199.
Shafazade, M., Yazdansepas, A., Amini, A., and Ganadha, M. R. 2005. Evaluation of drought tolerance in promising winter and facultative wheat genotypes using stress susceptibility and tolerance indices. Seed and Plant Juarnal 20 (1): 57- 71 (in Persian).
Soltani, A., Galeshi, S., Zeinali, E., and Latifi, N. 2002. Germination, seed reserve utilization and seedling growth of chickpea as affected by salinity and seed size. Seed Science and Technology 30: 51– 60.
Soltani, A., Gholipoor, M., and Zeinali, M. E. 2006. Seed reserve utilization and seedling growth of wheat as affected by drought and salinity. Environmental and Experimental Botany 55: 195-200.
Tardieu, F. 2012. Any trait or trait-related allele can confer drought tolerance: just design the right drought scenario. Journal of Experimental Botany 63 (1): 25-31.
Zebarjadi, A. R., TavakoliShadpey, S., Etminan, A. R., and Mohammadi, R. 2013. Evaluation of drought stress tolerance in durum wheat genotypes using drought tolerance indices. Seed and Plant Improvement Journal. 29 (1): 1-12. (in Persian ).
| ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 460 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 340 |
||