Evaluation and selection of wheat genotypes under terminal drought stress

Journal of Research in Ecology

Journal of Research in Ecology

ISSN No: Print: 2319 –1546; Online: 2319– 1554

An International Scientific Research Journal

Original Research

Evaluation and selection of wheat genotypes under terminal drought stress Authors: Fazlollah Hassani1, Saadollah Houshmand2, Fariba Rafiei2 and Ali Niazi3

ABSTRACT: The current investigation was carried out to evaluate the performance of wheat genotypes under terminal drought stress and determination of high yielding genotypes under drought stress and non-stress conditions, during 2013-14 and 201415 cropping seasons at Zarghan Agricultural Research Station, Fars province, Iran.

About 100 wheat genotypes (98 bread wheat and two durum wheat) were evaluated Institution: in alpha lattice experiment with two replications under stress (no irrigation after 1. Department of Seed and anthesis) and full irrigation conditions. Fifteen drought tolerance and susceptibility Plant Improvement, Fars indices were calculated based on grain yield for each of the genotypes. The results of Research and Education combined analysis of variance showed that the effect of year, drought stress and Center for Agriculture and genotype for grain yield were significant at P value < 0.01. The genotypes 96 (Ofogh), Natural Resources, 75 (Roshan) and 95 (WS-90-18) under full irrigation, and 44 (Misr1), 36 and 80 Agricultural Research, (Dehdasht) under drought stress conditions had the maximum grain yield. With Education and Extension respect to positive and significant correlation of Harmonic Mean Index (HARM), Organization (AREEO), P.O.Box: 71555617, Shiraz, Geometric Mean Productivity (GMP), Stress Tolerance Index (STI), Mean Productivity Iran.

(MP), Yield Index (YI), Modified Stress Tolerance Index for stress (MSTIs) and Modified Stress Tolerance Index for irrigation condition (MSTIp), with grain yield under both 2. Department of Plant Breeding and Biotechnology, drought stress (Ys) and full irrigation (Yp) conditions, these indices were introduced as the best screening criteria for the evaluation of genotypes in the current experiment.

Faculty of Agriculture, The screening of drought tolerant genotypes was performed using mean rank and Shahrekord University, rank standard deviation of selected indices, and Biplot analysis was accomplished Shahrekord, Iran. with the use of Principal Component Analysis (PCA). Finally, the genotypes 44(Misr1), 3. Research center for 96(Ofogh), 80(Dehdasht), 70(Seymareh) and 71(Azar2) were introduced as the most Biotechnology, College of tolerant genotypes to terminal drought stress.

Agriculture, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran.

Keywords: Corresponding author: Fazlollah Hassani

Email ID:

Drought tolerance after anthesis, grain yield, susceptibility indices, wheat.

Article Citation: Fazlollah Hassani, Saadollah Houshmand, Fariba Rafiei and Ali Niazi Evaluation and selection of wheat genotypes under terminal drought stress Journal of Research in Ecology (2017) 5(2): 1264-1275 Dates: Received: 20 July 2017

Web Address: http://ecologyresearch.info/ documents/EC0462.pdf

Journal of Research in Ecology An International Scientific Research Journal

Accepted: 24 Aug 2017

Published: 08 Nov 2017

This article is governed by the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0), which gives permission for unrestricted use, non-commercial, distribution and reproduction in all medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

1264-1275| JRE | 2017 | Vol 5 | No 2

www.ecologyresearch.info

Hassani et al., 2017 INTRODUCTION

Index (DI) (Lan, 1998) and Modified Stress Tolerance

Among the cereals, wheat has vital role in nutri-

Index (MSTI) which is a corrected form of Stress Toler-

tion and national economy of developing countries

ance Index, has been also introduced for the screening

(Alam et al., 2008). Drought stress is one the most im-

of tolerant genotypes under drought stress and non-

portant limiting factors in wheat production in arid and

stress conditions. Abiotic Tolerance Index (ATI) and

semi-arid areas of Iran (Ahmadi et al., 2009). The area

Susceptibility Stress Percentage Index (SSPI) are able to

under Irrigated and rain-fed wheat cultivation in Iran are

differentiate relative tolerant genotypes from non-

respectively 2.2 and 4.3 million hectares (Najafian et

tolerant genotypes, while Stress Non-stress Production

al., 2011). The production of wheat in dry-land farming

Index (SNPI) have the capability for diagnosing stable

is completely depended to rain. Therefore, the incidence

and high yielding genotypes under both full irrigation

of drought stress during reproductive stage of wheat

and drought stress conditions (Moosavi et al., 2008). In

growth is a non-avoidance issue, and lack of sufficient

regard to the evaluation of wheat genotypes perfor-

rain and its unsuitable distribution, is the main reason of

mance under full irrigation and drought stress condi-

yield reduction in these regions. In irrigated wheat, the

tions, those with desirable yield in both environments

water shortage usually occurs at grain filling period,

were classified in group A. Those genotypes that pro-

because of other spring crops competition for water, that

duced desirable yield under full irrigation or under

can noticeably reduce wheat grain yield (Galeshi and

drought stress conditions were respectively put in group

Eschoee, 2001). Drought stress reduces mean grain

B and C. Likewise genotypes with low yield in both

weight and finally the grain yield, via accelerating the

environments were placed in group D (Fernandez,

leaf senescence, decreasing growth period and grain

1992). Mardeh et al. (2006) reported that under moder-

filling rate (Royo et al., 2000).Therefore, those cultivars

ate drought stress conditions, the STI, GMP and MP

that can produce more grain yield, under both full irriga-

were effective indices in selecting high yielding wheat

tion and terminal drought stress conditions are very

genotypes under both full irrigation and drought stress

worthwhile.

conditions. According to Mohammadi et al. (2010),

Different indices have been introduced for eval-

genotypes with high YSI had high and low yields re-

uating the response of crops under full irrigation and

spectively under drought stress and full irrigation condi-

drought stress conditions. These indices are determined

tions. Jafari et al. (2009) noted that DI and STI indices

based on the tolerance or susceptibility of genotypes to

are able to identify suitable genotypes for both full irri-

drought stress (Fernandez, 1992). Evaluation of wheat

gation and drought stress conditions. Thus they can be

genotypes under full irrigation and terminal drought

used in identification of favorable cultivars in regions

stress conditions are accomplished, using indices such

that the intervals among irrigations are higher than those

as Stress Susceptibility Index (SSI) (Fisher and Maurer,

of normal ones or in regions that wheat encounters with

1978), Mean Productivity Index (MP), Tolerance Index

water shortage at critical growth stages (Jafari et al.,

(TOL) (Rosille and Hamblin, 1981), Stress Tolerance

2009) .

Index (STI) and Geometric Mean Productivity (GMP)

The objectives of the current research were to

(Fernandez, 1992). Fisher and Maurer (1978) and

evaluate the grain yields of bread and durum wheat gen-

Bouslama and Schapaugh (1984) introduced Relative

otypes under terminal drought stress and full irrigation,

Drought Index (RDI) and Yield Stability Index (YSI)

to determine genotypes with better yields under both

respectively. Other indices like Drought Resistance

conditions. Additionally, to determine drought indices

1265

Journal of Research in Ecology (2017) 5(2): 1264â&#x20AC;&#x201C;1275

Hassani et al., 2017 S. No 1

Table 1. Drought tolerance, susceptibility indices and their related formulas Indices Formula References Stress Susceptibility Index SSI=(1-(Ys/Yp))/ 1-( Ῡs/ Ῡp) Fisher and Maurer (1978)

2 3 4

Tolerance Index Mean Productivity Stress Tolerance index

TOL=Yp-Ys MP=(Yp+Ys)/2 STI=( Yp×Ys)/( Ῡp)2

Rosille and Hamblin (1981) Rosille and Hamblin (1981) Fernandez (1992)

5 6

Geometric Mean Productivity Harmonic Mean of Productivity Relative Drought Index Yield Index Yield Stability Index

GMP=(Yp×Ys)0.5 HARM=(2×(Yp×Ys))/(Yp+Ys)

Fernandez (1992) Fernandez (1992)

RDI= (Ys/Yp)/( Ῡs / Ῡp) YI=Ys/Ῡs YSI=Ys/Yp

10 11

Drought Resistance Index Tolerance Stress Modified Index

DI=Ys×(Ys/Yp)/Ῡs (K1=Yp2/Ῡp2 and MSTI=KiSTI K2=Ys2/Ῡs2)

Fisher and Maurer (1978) Gavuzzi et al. (1997) Bouslama and Schapaugh (1984) Lan (1998) Farshadfar and Sutka (2002)

12 13

Abiotic Tolerance Index Stress Susceptibility Percentage Index Stress Non-Stress Production Index Sensitivity Drought Index

ATI=[(Yp-Ys)/(Ῡp/Ῡs)] ×(Yp×Ys)0.5 SSPI=[(Yp-Ys)/2Yp] ×100

Moosavi et al. (2008) Moosavi et al. (2008)

SNPI=[(Yp+Ys)/(Yp-Ys)]0.5× (Yp×Ys×Ys) SDI=(Yp-Ys)/Yp

Moosavi et al. (2008)

7 8 9

14 15

Farshadfar and Javadinia (2011) *Ῡp, Ῡs, Ypand Ys are the mean yield of all genotypes under full irrigation and stress and mean yield of each genotypes in these two conditions, respectively. for differentiate tolerant and susceptible genotypes at

tural and Natural Resources Research and Education

terminal drought stress.

Center (Zarghan station), which is located in 30 kilometers from north of Shiraz city of Fars province, Iran. The

MATERIALS AND METHODS

geography characters of Zarghan are as following: the

In this project, a number of 98 bread wheat and

longitude is 52 and 43, the latitude is 29 and 46, the

two durum wheat genotypes (Table 3) were evaluated in

elevation from sea level is 1604 meters, the annual aver-

alpha lattice experiment with two replications under

age precipitation is 345 mm, and the annual average

drought stress (no irrigation after anthesis) and full irri-

temperature is 15.8° centigrade (NGIA, 2012). Zarghan

gation conditions. The genotypes that have similar pedi-

station is characterized with temperate climatic condi-

grees (Table 3) are those sister lines with different char-

tions. It is one of the main breeding centers for produc-

acters that were selected from drought experiments in

ing wheat cultivars. The mean of temperature and rain-

previous years (unpublished data). Due to the large

fall are exhibited in Table 2. In both years of research,

numbers of the genotypes, each of the replications was

the lands for performing the experiments were under

broken to five blocks. Each block included of 20 geno-

fallow system in the previous year and its provision was

types, that each was sowed on two beds with 60 cm

accompanied with two spring and autumn plowing,

width and 100 cm length (area of 1.2 square meters).

disking and leveling. The required fertilizers including

Fifteen drought tolerance and susceptibility indices were

nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium were added to soil

calculated based on grain yield for each of the geno-

based on soil test with the ratios 100, 90 and 50 kg/ha

types. The experiment was carried out in Fars Agricul-

respectively. After seed planting, Irrigations were equal-

Journal of Research in Ecology (2017) 5(2): 1264–1275

1266

-

0

23.6 29.1±1.4

0.8

blocks after anthesis. Broad and narrow leaves of weeds were controlled using Granestar (Tribenuron-Methyl (sulfonylurea) (750 g/kg) and axial (100 g/l pinoxaden

26.6±2.5 20.5±1.9

21.5

15.2±3.1 9.3±3.4

36

11.3±2.

6

0 8.5

tute, 2004) and Gene-STAT software's (VSN Interna-

25.5±1.9

Herbicides used in the area were used to control of

19.8±1.5

+25G/LCloquintocet-Mexyl) herbicides respectively.

14.6±3.5

29±1.3

irrigations were completely cut off in drought stress

weeds. Statistical analysis and mathematical calculations were accomplished using excel, SAS (SAS Institional, 2011).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The results of combined analysis of variance showed that the effects of year, drought stress and genotype on grain yield were significant at 1.0% of probabil-

9.4±3.1 7.4±2.5

56.4

8.3±1.6

11.6 41.5

2.2

9.2±2.5

73.2

0.6±3.1

18.9

5.4±2.5

ity (data not shown). The cultivars Ofogh, Roshan and line WS-90-18 under full irrigation condition and the lines with numbers 44 (Misr 1), 36 and 80 (Dehdasht) under drought stress condition had the maximum grain yield. In the current study, 15 drought tolerance and susceptibility indices were evaluated (Table 1). The studied genotypes were ranked based on the rate of each index. The resistance indices STI, GMP, HARM,

12±3.4

22.5

54.2

13.8±2.2

MSTIp, MSTIs, MP, YI, DI, ATI, YSI, RDI and SNPI were ranked from high to low rates and the susceptibility indices SSI, SDI, SSPI and TOL were ranked from

21.1±1.8 Mean Temperature (◦C)

0 Precipitation (mm) Year 2

Mean Temperature (◦C)

Precipitation (mm)

0

19.7±2.5

low to high rates (Tables 4), somehow the genotypes

Year 1

1267

blocks until anthesis stage, based on plant requirements and consideration of rainfalls and its distributions. The

2.8

25±1.0 29±1.4

0 0 0 0 6.9

41.6

0

July May

June

ly done in both stress and non-stress experimental

April March February January December November October

Table 2. Meteorological statistics related to 2013-14 and 2014-15 cropping seasons in Zarghan station

August

September

Hassani et al., 2017

were successively placed from tolerant to susceptible in all indices. Due to the multiplicity of genotypes and considering the aim that tolerant and susceptible genotypes to drought are practically placed at the top and bottom of table for each index, thus in tables 4 only the first 25 genotypes (tolerant to drought) and the last 15 that were placed in the middle of table were deleted.

As can be seen in table 4a, the highest yields of genotypes (susceptible to drought) were shown and Journal of Research in Ecology (2017) 5(2): 1264–1275

Table 3. List of used genotypes and their numbers in the experiment and statistical analysis

Hassani et al., 2017

those der full irrigation condition were related to the

drought stress condition. Likewise, the genotypes with

genotypes 96 (Ofogh), 75 (Roshan) and 95 (WS-90-18).

numbers 75 and 95 that were located at the second and

Under drought stress condition, the genotypes 44 (Misr

third positions of ranking were retrograded to 32 and 39

1), 36 and 80 (Dehdasht) had respectively maximum

positions of ranking that shows the bad effects of

yields. The cultivar Ofogh that had first rank under full

drought stress on these genotypes. By looking on the

irrigation condition was placed at fourth grade under

next ranks in these two columns of Table 4a we notice

Journal of Research in Ecology (2017) 5(2): 1264â&#x20AC;&#x201C;1275

1268

Hassani et al., 2017 Table 4a. Selected tolerant and susceptible genotypes based on drought tolerance indices R 1

Yp

Ys

STI

GMP

HARM

MSTIp

MSTIs

MP

YI

All Tol

96* 75 95

44 36 80

96 44 70

44 96 80

44 96 80

70 96 44

44 70 96

44 96 75

44 96 36

44 96 80

4 70

96 83

80 71

70 36

36 35

80 75

86 80

70 80

83 80

70 71

71 44

37 35

86 75

75 35

37 46

95 4

36 83

95 71

86 70

35 1

46

59

95

46

70

71

71

4

59

46

1

7

83

71

83

1

37

46

6

36

10

47

34

35

37

75

98

6

35

35

37

11

91 80 97 100

41 6 46 2

36 1 46 98

95 1 2 83

2 71 1 41

46 86 91 97

35 98 41 1

36 1 37 47

92 7 37 71

83 86 75 6

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

12 13 14 15

2

86

6

47

47

35

92

2

45

2

16

99

92

4

4

95

2

46

83

58

98

17

35

9

37

41

6

47

2

41

94

41

98 60

1 45

91 47

86 6

7 86

100 37

59 7

86 91

1 46

58 7

16 86 81 41

47 58 70 94

2 58 41 99

7 91 98 81

34 4 91 58

99 83 41 58

58 75 14 34

6 98 7 100

14 34 98 74

91 95 47 81

37

53

68

58

98

6

3

60

29

68

82 Yp 32 13

71 Ys 84 93

81 STI 73 15

45 GMP 15 49

45 HARM 84 93

36 MSTI(p) 84 66

95 MSTI(s) 63 52

81 MP 24 84

68 YI 93 21

45 All Tol 12 93

24 73 12 66 72 11 61 64 17 63 88 90 48

12 11 87 17 64 22 10 15 16 13 88 90 61

52 24 84 93 48 10 63 64 17 13 61 88 90

84 93 12 63 11 10 48 64 17 13 61 88 90

22 63 15 12 11 48 10 64 17 13 88 61 90

24 10 72 73 93 48 13 64 63 17 61 88 90

87 16 84 93 22 15 17 64 10 13 61 90 88

49 93 12 10 63 11 13 64 17 48 61 88 90

69 87 52 10 22 15 17 64 16 13 90 88 61

16 22 11 15 10 63 64 17 48 13 61 88 90

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 R 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100

*: Numbers in the table except column “R” are the numbers related to the Genotypes.

R: Ranks of genotypes based on tolerance to drought stress, Yp: Grain yield under full irrigation, Ys: Grain yield under terminal drought stress, STI: Stress Tolerance index, GMP: Geometric Mean Productivity, HARM: Harmonic Mean of Productivity, MSTIp: Modified Stress Tolerance index using Yp, MSTIs: Modified Stress Tolerance index using Ys, MP: Mean Productivity, YI: Yield Index, All TOL: New rank that is calculated based on rank sum of stress tolerance indices (STI, GMP, HARM, MSTIp, MSTIs, MP and YI) 1269

Journal of Research in Ecology (2017) 5(2): 1264–1275

Hassani et al., 2017 Table 4b. Selected tolerant and susceptible genotypes based on drought tolerance and susceptibility indices R 1

DI

SSI

SDI

SSPI

TOL

ATI

YSI

RDI

SNPI

*All SUS

44*

59

59

53

53

53

59

59

33

53

2

36

53

29

29

29

48

29

29

7

29

3

59

29

53

59

59

29

53

53

59

59

83

36

36

14

14

63

36

36

73

14

92

14

14

63

48

14

14

14

53

36

7 29 14 86 96 53 80 57 6 34 37 94 35 9 45

7 57 5 92 48 72 33 63 66 44 83 34 73 9 78

7 57 92 33 72 5 48 44 63 73 66 34 83 9 37

48 72 36 5 57 66 92 33 73 7 34 9 78 32 24

63 5 66 36 72 57 92 9 73 33 78 32 34 76 83

66 5 72 59 17 32 57 92 13 64 76 24 9 11 78

7 57 92 33 72 5 48 44 63 73 66 34 83 9 37

7 33 57 92 72 48 5 73 44 63 34 66 83 9 74

63 90 48 72 17 29 64 88 50 13 24 5 14 66 43

5 57 72 48 92 63 33 66 73 34 9 7 78 83 32

74 5 33 72 58 DI

37 74 32 76 94 SSI

78 74 94 32 76 SDI

76 83 20 44 77 SSPI

24 7 77 20 27 TOL

39 27 12 30 73 ATI

78 74 94 32 76 YSI

37 94 78 50 32 RDI

84 57 93 77 61 SNPI

76 44 20 74 37 *All SUS

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 R 86

87

70

54

47

22

1

54

54

19

96

87

52

54

100

19

21

60

100

90

47

90

88

54

19

13

15

55

43

13

100

100

71

89

17

69

90

91

15

99

90

69

46

100

90

64 69 10

90 75 21

69 75 97

99 71 22

99 91 100

46 55 91

69 75 97

13 75 97

99 98 97

21 70 97

91 92 93

21

97

95

21

96

97

95

95

91

75

94

13

95

21

70

71

16

21

88

1

88

95

22 15 90 16 88

88 4 22 15 61

88 4 22 15 61

100 97 75 95 16

70 97 75 4 95

70 4 71 96 95

88 4 22 15 61

21 15 22 4 61

71 4 96 75 95

22 15 95 4 16

61

16

16

4

16

75

16

16

70

61

96 97 98 99 100

*: All the numbers in the table except column “R” are the numbers related to the Genotypes.

R: Ranks of genotyps based on tolerance to drought stress, DI: Drought Resistance Index, SSI: Stress Susceptibility Index, SDI: Sensitivity drought index, SSPI: Stress Susceptibility Percentage Index, Tol: Tolerance index, ATI: Abiotic Tolerance Index, YSI: Yield Stability Index RDI: Relative Drought Index SNPI: Stress Non-Stress Production Index All SUS: New rank that is calculated based on rank sum of stress susceptibility indices (SSI, SDI, SSPI and TOL).

Journal of Research in Ecology (2017) 5(2): 1264–1275

1270

Hassani et al., 2017

1271

**significant at 0.01 level of probability and “ns” non-significantYp: Grain yeild under full irrigation, Ys: Grain yield under terminal drought stress, STI: Stress Tolerance index, GMP: Geometric Mean Productivity, HARM: Harmonic Mean of Productivity, MSTIp: Modified Stress Tolerance index using Yp, MSTIs: Modified Stress Tolerance index using Ys, MP: Mean Productivity, YI: Yield Index.

ATI DI GMP HARM MP MSTIp MSTIs RDI SDI SNPI SSI SSPI STI TOL YI YSI Yp Ys

1 -0.203* 0.574** 0.491** 0.653** 0.739** 0.401** -0.598** 0.615** -0.717** 0.648** 0.846** 0.588** 0.917** 0.223* -0.615** 0.873** 0.187ns ATI

1 0.620** 0.690** 0.536** 0.359** 0.696** 0.841** -0.839** 0.062ns -0.828** -0.56** 0.609** -0.523** 0.889** 0.839** 0.201* 0.874** DI

1 0.994** 0.993** 0.872** 0.863** 0.146ns -0.140ns -0.616** -0.128 0.258** 0.970** 0.291** 0.889** 0.140ns 0.881** 0.906** GMP

1 0.975** 0.837** 0.870** 0.242* -0.238* -0.562** -0.227* 0.156ns 0.961** 0.190ns 0.924** 0.238* 0.827** 0.944** HARM

1 0.900** 0.844** 0.040 ns -0.034ns -0.666** -0.021ns 0.364** 0.968** 0.396** 0.840** 0.034ns 0.929** 0.855** MP

1 0.875** -0.139ns 0.148ns -0.704** 0.167ns 0.510** 0.939** 0.541** 0.713** -0.148ns 0.911** 0.665** MSTIp

1 0.249* -0.240* -0.473** -0.220* 0.089ns 0.933** 0.134ns 0.886** 0.240* 0.704** 0.835** MSTIs

1 -0.999** 0.501** -0.993** -0.890** 0.116ns -0.854** 0.533** 0.999** -0.314** 0.526** RDI

1 -0.503** 0.997** 0.893** -0.108ns 0.865** -0.526** -1** 0.323** -0.526** SDI

1 -0.505** -0.721** -0.652** -0.701** -0.364** 0.503** -0.795** -0.321** SNPI

1 0.896** -0.090ns 0.883** -0.509** -0.997** 0.339** -0.523** SSI

1 0.288** 0.979** -0.145ns -0.893** 0.675** -0.161ns SSPI

1 0.323** 0.896** 0.107ns 0.874** 0.861** STI

1 -0.104ns -0.865** 0.708** -0.139ns TOL

1 0.526** 0.604** 0.964** YI

Table 5 Correlation coefficients between indicators of drought tolerance and yield under stress and full irrigation conditions.

1 -0.323** 0.526** YSI

1 0.601** Yp

1 Ys

that some of the genotypes like 4, 70 and 71 had reduced ranking under drought stress to full irrigation condition, but the genotypes 44, 36 and 80 had promotion of ranking. This issue indicates the different responses of the genotypes to stress and non-stress conditions. Among all the genotypes, genotype 48 under full irrigation condition and genotype 61 under drought stress condition had the lowest ranks in the Table 4a.

The two genotype numbers 44 and 96 were considered as the tolerant genotypes based on the HARM, MP and YI indices. Despite of differences in the ranks of the genotypes associated with the eight tolerance indices and by considering simultaneously all eight indices, then the four genotypes 44, 96, 80 and 70 could be considered as the tolerant genotypes to drought stress. Although at the end of Table 4a, the four genotypes 90, 88, 61 and 1 were shown to be as the most susceptible genotypes but, their ranks are different among indices.

Majidi et al. (2011) and Talebi et al. (2009) reported that STI, GMP, HARM and MP are able to identify high yielding genotypes under both normal and drought stress conditions. Farshadfar et al. (2012) also reported that the indices STI, GMP, MP, DI, YI and MSTI can identify the tolerant genotypes having high yield in both full irrigation and drought stress conditions.

In all indices including SSI, SDI, SSPI, TOL, YSI and RDI, the three genotypes 53, 29 and 59 were identified as tolerant genotypes, of course with differences in their ranks. In the index SNPI the first two genotypes are 33 and 7 but, the third genotype as well as other indices is the genotype 59. Except the susceptible indices including SSI and SDI, and also tolerance indices YSI and RDI, in which the genotypes 15, 22, 4 and 88 were introduced as susceptible ones with little difference in their ranks, coordination does not exist in introducing susceptible genotypes to drought stress among the mentioned indices. With respect to the above results it seems that the submitter indices in Table 4b, have only distinguished those tolerant genotypes having low Journal of Research in Ecology (2017) 5(2): 1264–1275

Hassani et al., 2017 Table 6. Principle component analysis using grain yield and drought tolerance and susceptibility indices No

Name

PCI1

PCI2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Yp Ys SSI TOL MP YI YSI STI GMP DI HARM SDI RDI SSPI ATI SNPI MSTIp MSTIs Eigen value Variance (%) Cumulative variance (%)

0.809 0.966 -0.382 0.040 0.958 0.973 0.392 0.977 0.978 0.810 0.978 -0.392 0.394 0.016 0.413 -0.511 0.867 0.934 9.661 53.670 53.670

0.573 -0.201 0.916 0.986 0.248 -0.200 -0.913 0.189 0.159 -0.574 0.076 -0.908 -0.908 0.984 0.844 -0.717 0.405 0.044 7.530 41.832 95.502

Yp: Grain yield under full irrigation, Ys: Grain yield under terminal drought stress, STI: Stress Tolerance index, GMP: Geometric Mean Productivity, HARM: Harmonic Mean of Productivity, MSTIp: Modified Stress Tolerance index using Yp, MSTIs: Modified Stress Tolerance index using Ys, MP: Mean Productivity, YI: Yield Index yield with little difference under full irrigation and

had positive and significant correlation with the yield

drought stress conditions but, they cannot identify those

under drought stress condition. Also the yield under full

genotypes with high and desirable yield under the two

irrigation condition had a positive and significant corre-

conditions. Although these indices cannot be used in

lation with the indices MP (92.9%), MSTIp (91.1%),

identification of cultivars and lines having acceptable

GMP (88.1%). STI (87.4%), ATI (87.3%), HARM

yield in farmerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s fields but possibly they can be used in

(82.7%), TOL (70.8%), MSTIs (70.4%), SSPI (67.5%)

identification of genotypes with the least reduction in

and YI (60.4%). Majidi et al. (2011) noted that the yield

their yield in order to do genetic and molecular studies

under full irrigation condition had positive and signifi-

or selecting the parents in crosses to increase tolerance

cant correlation with the indices TOL, MP, GMP, STI

to drought stress.

and HARM. They further stated that the correlation be-

The correlations among indices and with yield

tween yield and indices under drought stress condition

under full irrigation and drought stress conditions are

showed that the selection based on the indices might

exhibited in Table 5. The yield under drought stress

increase the yield under both environments.

condition (Ys) had positive and significant correlation

Among the above mentioned indices, GMP,

(60.1%) with that under full irrigation condition (Yp).

HARM, MP and STI had correlations above 82% with

The indices HARM (94.4%), GMP (90.6%), STI

the yield under both full irrigation and drought stress

(86.1%) MP (85.5%), DI (87.4%), YI (96.4%), MSTIs

conditions. The results indicated that these indices are

(83.5%), MSTIp (66.5%), RDI (52.6%), YSI (52.6%)

very efficient in distinguishing high yielding genotypes

Journal of Research in Ecology (2017) 5(2): 1264â&#x20AC;&#x201C;1275

1272

Hassani et al., 2017 under both full irrigation drought stress conditions. Far-

yield under drought stress condition, then the later indi-

shadfar et al. (2011) believed that the most suitable in-

ces does not respond. Based on the whole obtained data,

dex for selecting tolerant genotype to stress is one that

it can be conclude that the indices HARM, GMP, STI,

has high correlation with the yield under both environ-

MP, YI, MSTIs and MSTIp are the best criteria for se-

ments conditions. The result showed that STI, GMP,

lection of genotypes under drought stress condition.

HARM, MSTIp, MSTIs, MP and YI had high correla-

Based on the results, the genotypes numbers 44,

tion with the yield under both mentioned conditions, are

96, 80, 70 and 71 can be introduce as the most tolerant

very valuable in evaluating genotypes (Table 5).

genotypes to drought. Naghavi et al. (2013) in corn and

Principle component analysis using the yield

Farshadfar et al. (2012) in wheat, introduced the indices

and drought tolerance and susceptibility indices showed

GMP, STI, MP,DI, YI, K1STI and K2STI by consider-

that the two first components have eigen value above

ing biplot analysis based on PCA and correlation of

one and 95.50% of variations are determined by these

indices with yield under both full irrigation and drought

two components (Table 6). When the data in Table 6

stress conditions. On this basis they introduced tolerant

was evaluated more precisely, it was identified that sev-

genotypes to drought stress.

en introduced indices (indices in Table 4) that all are drought tolerant indices, along with the yield under both

CONCLUSION

full irrigation and drought stress conditions are placed in

According to the results of this research it can

PCI1 one that can be named tolerant factor. Therefore,

be seen that, under full irrigation condition the 96

by computing mean rank, standard deviation of rank

(Ofogh), 75 (Roshan) and 95 (WS-90-18) genotypes,

and finally rank sum and also simultaneously consider-

and in drought stress condition 44 (Misr1), 36 and 80

ing all seven mentioned indices and ranking of geno-

(Dehdasht) genotypes had the maximum grain yield and

types based on new criterion, it can be considered that

can be considered as promising variety in these areas.

the genotypes 44, 96 and 80 are the most tolerant and

The screening of drought tolerant genotypes using Bip-

90, 88 and 61 are the most susceptible genotypes to

lot analysis along with PCA showed that 44(Misr1), 96

drought stress (Table 4a).

(Ofogh), 80(Dehdasht), 70(Seymareh) and 71(Azar2)

It should be noted that the indices SSI, SDI, SSPI and TOL have high positive correlation among

genotypes were introduced as the most tolerant to terminal drought stress.

themselves but none of them has positive and significant correlation with the yield under drought stress condition

REFERENCES

(Table 5). By computing rank sum and ranking geno-

Ahmadi A, Joudi M and Janmohammadi M. (2009).

types based on the above four indices, the genotypes 96,

Late defoliation and wheat yield: little evidence of post-

90 and 71 were introduced as the most tolerant and 61,

anthesis source limitation. Field Crops Research, 113

16 and 4 were introduced as the most susceptible

(1): 90-93.

genotypes to drought stress condition (Table 4b). The results showed that the above introduced tolerant geno-

Alam MS, Rahman AHMM, Nesa MN, Khan SK

types to drought stress have low potential yields and the

and Siddquie NA. (2008). Effect of source and/or sink

discussed indices have emphasis on the least difference

restriction on the grain yield in wheat. Journal of

of yield under stress and non-stress conditions. Further-

Applied Science Research, 4(3): 258-261.

more, if the aim is to screen the genotypes with high 1273

Journal of Research in Ecology (2017) 5(2): 1264â&#x20AC;&#x201C;1275

Hassani et al., 2017 Bouslama M and Schapaugh WT. (1984). Stress toler-

corn (Zea mays L.) hybrids. International Journal of

ance in soybean. Part 1. evaluation of three screening

Plant Production, 3(4): 33-38.

techniques for heat and drought tolerance. Crop Science, 24: 933-937.

Farshadfar E, Jamshidi B and Aghaee M. (2012).

Biplot analysis of drought tolerance indicators in bread wheat lanraces of Iran. International Journal of Agriculture and Crop Sciences, 4(5): 226-233.

Lan J. (1998). Comparison of evaluating methods for agronomic drought resistance in crops. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Occidentalis Sinica, 7: 85-87.

Majidi MM, Tavakoli V, Mirlohi A and Sabzalian MR. (2011). Wild safflower species (Carthamus oxyacanthus Bieb.): A possible source of drought toler-

Farshadfar E and Javadinia J. (2011). Evaluation of

ance for arid environments. Australian Journal of Crop

Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes for drought

Science, 5(8):1055-1063.

tolerance. Seed and Plant Improvement Journal, 27-1 (4): 517-537.

Mohammadi R, Armion M, Kahrizi D and Amri A. (2010). Efficiency of screening techniques for evaluat-

Farshadfar E and Sutka J. (2002). Screening drought

ing durum wheat genotypes under mild drought condi-

tolerance criteria in maize. Acta Agronomica Hungari-

tions. International Journal of Plant Production,

ca, 50(4): 411-416.

4(1): 1735-1743.

Fernandez GC. (1992). Effective selection criteria for

Moosavi SS, Yazdi Samadi B, Naghavi MR, Zali AA,

assessing plant stress tolerance. In: Kuo C. G. (ed) Pro-

Dashti H and Pourshahbazi A. (2008). Introduction of

ceedings of the International symposium on adaptation

new indices to identify relative drought tolerance and

of vegetables and other food crops to temperature and

resistance in wheat genotypes. DESERT, 12:165-178.

water stres, Taiwan, 13-18 August 1992. 257-270 p.

Naghavi MR, Pour Aboughadare A and Khalili M.

Fischer RA and Maurer R. (1978). Drought resistance

(2013). Evaluation of Drought Tolerance Indices for

in spring wheat cultivars, I. Grain yield response.

Screening Some of Corn (Zea mays L.) Cultivars under

Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 29:897-

Environmental Conditions. Notulae Scientia Biologicae,

912.

5(3): 388-393.

Galeshi S and Eschoee B. (2001). Post anthesis respose

Najafian G, Jafarnejad A, Ghandi A and Nikoo-

of spring wheat to water limitation. Journal of Agricul-

seresht R. (2011). Adaptive traits related to terminal

tural and Natural Resources Sciences. 4:99-113.

drought tolerance in hexaploid wheat (Triticum aestivum

Gavuzzi P, Rizza F, Palumbo M, Campanile RG,

L.) genotypes. Crop Breeding Journal, 1(1): 57-73.

Ricciardi GL and Borghi B. (1997). Evaluation of

National

field and laboratory predictors of drought and heat toler-

[Internet]. [NGIA]. C 1995-2012. Available from:

ance in winter cereals. Canadian Journal of Plant

https://geographic.org/geographic_names/

Science, 77(4): 523-531.

Jafari A, Paknejad F and AL-Ahmadi M. (2009).

Evaluation of selection indices for drought tolerance of

Journal of Research in Ecology (2017) 5(2): 1264â&#x20AC;&#x201C;1275

Geospatial-Intelligence

Agency

name.php?uni=-4356071&fid=2756&c=iran Rosielle AA and Hamblin J. (1981). Theoretical aspect

1274

Hassani et al., 2017 of selection for yield in stress and non-stress environments. Crop Science, 21(6): 943-946.

Royo C, Abaza M, Blanco R and Garcia del Mortal LF. (2000). Triticale grain growth and morphometry as affected by drought stress, late sowing and simulated drought stress. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology, 27(11): 1051-1059.

Sio-Se Mardeh A, Ahmadi A, Poustini K and Mohammadi V. (2006). Evaluation of drought resistance indices under various environmental conditions. Field Crop Research, 98(2-3): 222-229.

SAS Institute Inc., SAS 9.1.3 Help and Documentation, Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc., 2002-2004.

Talebi R, Fayaz F and Naji M. (2009). Effective selection criteria for assessing drought stress tolerance in drum wheat (Triticum durum Desf.). General and Applied Plant Physiology, 35(1-2): 64-74.

VSN International (2011). GenStat for Windows. 14th ed. VSN International Hemel Hempstead UK. Web page: Genstat.co.uk

Submit your articles online at ecologyresearch.info Advantages

     

Easy online submission Complete Peer review Affordable Charges Quick processing Extensive indexing You retain your copyright

submit@ecologyresearch.info www.ecologyresearch.info/Submit.php.

1275

Journal of Research in Ecology (2017) 5(2): 1264–1275