سازگاری و پایداری عملکرد دانه ژنوتیپ‌های کینوا (Chenopodium quinoa Wild) با استفاده از معیارهای مختلف پایداری
محورهای موضوعی : اکوفیزیولوژی گیاهان زراعی
مریم اطاعتی
1
(دانشجوی دکتری گروه زراعت، واحد کرج، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، کرج، ایران)
محمدرضا اردکانی
2
(استاد گروه زراعت، واحد کرج، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، کرج، ایران)
محمود باقری
3
(دانشیار موسسه تحقیقات اصلاح و تهیه نهال و بذر، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، کرج، ایران)
فرزاد پاک نژآد
4
(استاد گروه زراعت، واحد کرج، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، کرج، ایران)
فرید گل زردی
5
(دانشیار موسسه تحقیقات اصلاح و تهیه نهال و بذر، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، کرج، ایران)
کلید واژه: محیط, ژنوتیپ, پایداری عملکرد, کینوا,
چکیده مقاله :
گیاه کینوا به دلیل ارزش غذایی مطلوب و پتانسیل بالای تولید به عنوان گیاه مناسب در شرایط نامساعد محیطی شناخته شده است. این گیاه در کشوری مانند ایران که دارای تنوع اقلیمی است باعث ایجاد امنیت غذایی، افزایش درآمد کشاورزان و تولید پایدار خواهد شد. به منظور بررسی اثر متقابل ژنوتیپ و محیط و تعیین سـازگاری و پایداری عملکرد دانه ژنوتیپ های کینوا در مناطق مختلف کشـور، تعداد ده ژنوتیپ در قالب طرح بلوک های کامل تصادفی با سه تکـرار در چهـار منطقه کرج، شهرکرد، ارومیه و کاشمر طی سال زراعی 1397-1396 ارزیابی شدند. ژنوتیپ‌های مورد بررسی شامل Titicaca،Red Carina، Giza1، Q12، Q18، Q21، Q22، Q26، Q29 و Q31 بودند. نتایج تجزیه واریانس مرکب نشان داد اثر محیط و اثر متقابل محیط و ژنوتیپ بر عملکرد دانه در سطح احتمال یک درصد معنی‌دار بود. بیشترین عملکرد دانه در کرج و شهرکرد (به‌ترتیب 717 و 2196 کیلوگرم در هکتار) توسط ژنوتیپ Q26 و در ارومیه و کاشمر (به ترتیب 1614 و 829 کیلوگرم در هکتار) به ترتیب توسط ژنوتیپ Q18 و Titicaca حاصل شد. با توجه به نتایج بررسی پایداری و سازگاری با روش ها و معیارهای مختلف (پارامتری و ناپارامتری)، ژنوتیپ Red Carina با داشتن عملکرد دانه 996 کیلوگرم در هکتار بالاتر از میانگین عملکرد کل ژنوتیپ ها (939 کیلوگرم در هکتار)، بالاترین رتبه معیار گزینش هم زمان برای عملکرد و پایداری، کمترین میانگین رتبه (1/56) و حداقل انحراف معیار رتبه (1.03 =SD) به عنوان ژنوتیپ دارای عملکرد مطلوب و پایدار و سازگار با مناطق مورد بررسی شناسایی شد.
Quinoa is known as a suitable plant in adverse environmental conditions due to its desirable nutritional value and high production potential such a country like Iran, which has a climate diversity, it will create food security, increase farmers'''' incomes and sustainable production. To study the genotype and environment interaction and determine the stability and adaptability of grain yield of quinoa genotypes in different regions of Iran, ten genotypes were evaluated in a randomized complete block design with three replications in four regions of Karaj, Shahrekord, Urmia, and Kashmar during 2017-2018 cropping season. The studied genotypes included Titicaca, Red Carina, Giza1, Q12, Q18, Q21, Q22, Q26, Q29, and Q31. The results of the combined analysis of variance showed that the effect of environment and the genotype and environment interaction on the grain yield were significant (p≤0.01). The highest grain yield in Karaj and Shahrekord (717 and 2196 kg.ha-1, respectively) was obtained by the Q26 genotype and in Urmia and Kashmar (1614 and 829 kg.ha-1, respectively) by the Q18 and Titicaca genotypes, respectively. According to the results of stability and compatibility analysis with different methods and indices (parametric and non-parametric), the Red Carina genotype was identified as a genotype with suitable and stable yield and compatible with the study areas, with 996 kg.ha-1 grain yield higher than the average yield of all genotypes (939 kg.ha-1), the highest rank of simultaneous selection index for yield and stability, the lowest mean rank (1.56), and the minimum standard deviation of rank (SD = 1.03).
Ali, M., A. Elsadek, and E. Mohamed Salem. 2018. Stability parameters and AMMI analysis of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa). Egyptian Journal of Agronomy. 40(1): 59-74. doi:10.21608/agro.2018.2916.1094
Angeli, V., P. Miguel Silva, D. Massuela, M. WaleedKhan, A. Hamar, F, Khajehei, S. Graeff-Honninger, and C. Piatti. 2020. Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa): An overview of the potentials of the golden grain and socio-economic and environmental aspects of its cultivation and marketization. 9(2): 216. doi: 10.3390/foods9020216
Bagheri, M. Evaluation of compatibility of quinoa genotypes in Mashhad and Isfahan.Final Report of the Research Project.Seed and Plant Breeding Research Institute,Karaj, Iran. (In Persian).
Bagheri, M. 2018b. Handbook of quinoa agriculture. Seed and Plant Breeding Research Institute, Karaj, Iran. (In Persian).
Bazile, D., D. Bertero, and C. Nieto. 2015. State of the art report on quinoa around the world in 2013. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) & CIRAD.
Bhargava, A., and S. Sirvastava. 2013. Quinoa botany. Production and uses. CAB International, Oxfordshire.
Bhargava, A., S. Shukala, and D. Ohri. 2007. Genetic variability and interrelationship among various morphological and quality traits in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa). Field Crops Research. 101(1):104–116. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2006.10.001
Bhargava, A., S. Shukla, and D. Ohri. 2005. Analysis of genotype × environment interaction for grain yield in Chenopodium Czech Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding. 4(2): 64-72. doi: 10.17221/3673-CJGPB
Eberhart, S.A., and W.A. Russell. 1966. Stability parameters for comparing varieties. Crop Science. 6: 6-40.
Francis, T.R., and G.N. Kannenberg. 1978. Yield stability studies in short-season maize. A descriptive method for grouping genotypes. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 58: 1029-1034. doi: 10.4141/cjps78-157
Golabi, M., S. Lak, A. Gilani, M. Alavi Fazel, and A. Egdernezhad .2022. Growth index, yield and yield components of Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) cultivars affected by date and method of planting at Ahvaz region. Journal of Crop Ecophysiology. 16: 411-434. doi:10.30495/JCEP.202201911931.1721
Hussain, M.I., A. Muscolo, M. Ahmed, M.A. Asghar, and A.J. Al-Dakheel. 2020. Agro-morphological, yield and quality traits and interrelationship with yield stability in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) genotypes under saline marginal environment. Plants. 9(12): 1763. doi: 10.3390/plants9121763
Jorfi, A., M. Alavifazel, A. Gilani, M.R. Ardakani, and S. Lack. 2022. Evaluation of root growth dynamics and yield components of Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) cultivars by changing phosphorus and zinc levels. Journal of Crop Ecophysiology.16: 473-455. doi:10.30495/JCEP.2023.1933283.1810
Kang, M.S. 1993. Simultaneous selection for yield and stability in crop performance trials: consequences for growers. Agronomy Journal. 85: 754-757. 10.2134/agronj1993.00021962008500030042x
Miri, Kh. 2016. Evaluation of compatibility of quinoa genotypes to Iranshahr region. Final Report of the Research Project. Balochistan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Training Center (Iranshahr). Agricultural Education and Extension Research Organization, Iran. (In Persian).65 P.
Mohebodini, M., H. Dehghani, and S.H. Sabaghpour. 2006. Stability of performance in lentil (Lens culinaris) genotypes in Iran. Euphytica. 149: 343-352. doi: 10.1007/s10681-006-9086-7
Molaei, 2018. Familiarity with quinoa and cultivation of its cultivars in Shahrekord. Research Project. Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization. Karaj, Iran. (In Persian). 38 P.
Pour-Aboughadareh, A., M. Yousefian, H. Moradkhani, P. Poczai, and K.H.M. Siddique. 2019. STABILITYSOFT: A new online program to calculate parametric and non-parametric stability statistics for crop traits. Applications in Plant Sciences. 7(1): e1211. doi: 1002/aps3.1211
Sepahvand, N. A. 2013. Compatibility study, agronomic characteristics, phenological and quality value of quinoa plant in Iran.Final Report.Seed and Plant Breeding Research Institute. (In Persian). 66 P.
Sharifian, H., S. Jamali, and F. Sajjadi. 2018. Investigation of the effect of different salinity levels on some morphological characteristics of quinoa under different irrigation regimes. Journal of Soil and Water Sciences. 22 (2): 15-27. (In Persian). doi: 22069/jwsc.2018.13721.2841
Shukla, G.K. 1972. Some statistical aspects of partitioning genotype - environmental components of variability. Heredity. 29: 237-245. doi:10.1038/hdy.1972.87
Thennarasu, K. 1995. On certain non- parametric procedures for studying genotype- environment interactions and yield stability. Ph.D. Thesis. P.J. School, IARI, New Dehli, India.
Vahedi, M.R., E. Tohidi Nejad, and A. Pasandi Pour. 2021. Evaluation of yield and yield components of Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) as affected by different planting densities. Journal of Crop Ecophysiology. 15: 593-608. doi: 10.30495/ jcep.2022.689808
Vasconcelos, E. S., M. Echer, M. Marcia de, M.A. Kliemann, and M. Júnior. 2019. Selection and recommend of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) genotypes based on the yield genotypic adaptability and stability. Revista Ceres. 66(2): 117-123. doi:10.1590/0034-737x201966020006
Wricke, G. 1962. Uber eine methode zur refassung der okologischen streubretite in feldversuchen. Flazenzuecht. 47: 92-96.
_||_Ali, M., A. Elsadek, and E. Mohamed Salem. 2018. Stability parameters and AMMI analysis of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa). Egyptian Journal of Agronomy. 40(1): 59-74. doi:10.21608/agro.2018.2916.1094
Angeli, V., P. Miguel Silva, D. Massuela, M. WaleedKhan, A. Hamar, F, Khajehei, S. Graeff-Honninger, and C. Piatti. 2020. Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa): An overview of the potentials of the golden grain and socio-economic and environmental aspects of its cultivation and marketization. 9(2): 216. doi: 10.3390/foods9020216
Bagheri, M. Evaluation of compatibility of quinoa genotypes in Mashhad and Isfahan.Final Report of the Research Project.Seed and Plant Breeding Research Institute,Karaj, Iran. (In Persian).
Bagheri, M. 2018b. Handbook of quinoa agriculture. Seed and Plant Breeding Research Institute, Karaj, Iran. (In Persian).
Bazile, D., D. Bertero, and C. Nieto. 2015. State of the art report on quinoa around the world in 2013. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) & CIRAD.
Bhargava, A., and S. Sirvastava. 2013. Quinoa botany. Production and uses. CAB International, Oxfordshire.
Bhargava, A., S. Shukala, and D. Ohri. 2007. Genetic variability and interrelationship among various morphological and quality traits in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa). Field Crops Research. 101(1):104–116. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2006.10.001
Bhargava, A., S. Shukla, and D. Ohri. 2005. Analysis of genotype × environment interaction for grain yield in Chenopodium Czech Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding. 4(2): 64-72. doi: 10.17221/3673-CJGPB
Eberhart, S.A., and W.A. Russell. 1966. Stability parameters for comparing varieties. Crop Science. 6: 6-40.
Francis, T.R., and G.N. Kannenberg. 1978. Yield stability studies in short-season maize. A descriptive method for grouping genotypes. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 58: 1029-1034. doi: 10.4141/cjps78-157
Golabi, M., S. Lak, A. Gilani, M. Alavi Fazel, and A. Egdernezhad .2022. Growth index, yield and yield components of Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) cultivars affected by date and method of planting at Ahvaz region. Journal of Crop Ecophysiology. 16: 411-434. doi:10.30495/JCEP.202201911931.1721
Hussain, M.I., A. Muscolo, M. Ahmed, M.A. Asghar, and A.J. Al-Dakheel. 2020. Agro-morphological, yield and quality traits and interrelationship with yield stability in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) genotypes under saline marginal environment. Plants. 9(12): 1763. doi: 10.3390/plants9121763
Jorfi, A., M. Alavifazel, A. Gilani, M.R. Ardakani, and S. Lack. 2022. Evaluation of root growth dynamics and yield components of Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) cultivars by changing phosphorus and zinc levels. Journal of Crop Ecophysiology.16: 473-455. doi:10.30495/JCEP.2023.1933283.1810
Kang, M.S. 1993. Simultaneous selection for yield and stability in crop performance trials: consequences for growers. Agronomy Journal. 85: 754-757. 10.2134/agronj1993.00021962008500030042x
Miri, Kh. 2016. Evaluation of compatibility of quinoa genotypes to Iranshahr region. Final Report of the Research Project. Balochistan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Training Center (Iranshahr). Agricultural Education and Extension Research Organization, Iran. (In Persian).65 P.
Mohebodini, M., H. Dehghani, and S.H. Sabaghpour. 2006. Stability of performance in lentil (Lens culinaris) genotypes in Iran. Euphytica. 149: 343-352. doi: 10.1007/s10681-006-9086-7
Molaei, 2018. Familiarity with quinoa and cultivation of its cultivars in Shahrekord. Research Project. Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization. Karaj, Iran. (In Persian). 38 P.
Pour-Aboughadareh, A., M. Yousefian, H. Moradkhani, P. Poczai, and K.H.M. Siddique. 2019. STABILITYSOFT: A new online program to calculate parametric and non-parametric stability statistics for crop traits. Applications in Plant Sciences. 7(1): e1211. doi: 1002/aps3.1211
Sepahvand, N. A. 2013. Compatibility study, agronomic characteristics, phenological and quality value of quinoa plant in Iran.Final Report.Seed and Plant Breeding Research Institute. (In Persian). 66 P.
Sharifian, H., S. Jamali, and F. Sajjadi. 2018. Investigation of the effect of different salinity levels on some morphological characteristics of quinoa under different irrigation regimes. Journal of Soil and Water Sciences. 22 (2): 15-27. (In Persian). doi: 22069/jwsc.2018.13721.2841
Shukla, G.K. 1972. Some statistical aspects of partitioning genotype - environmental components of variability. Heredity. 29: 237-245. doi:10.1038/hdy.1972.87
Thennarasu, K. 1995. On certain non- parametric procedures for studying genotype- environment interactions and yield stability. Ph.D. Thesis. P.J. School, IARI, New Dehli, India.
Vahedi, M.R., E. Tohidi Nejad, and A. Pasandi Pour. 2021. Evaluation of yield and yield components of Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) as affected by different planting densities. Journal of Crop Ecophysiology. 15: 593-608. doi: 10.30495/ jcep.2022.689808
Vasconcelos, E. S., M. Echer, M. Marcia de, M.A. Kliemann, and M. Júnior. 2019. Selection and recommend of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) genotypes based on the yield genotypic adaptability and stability. Revista Ceres. 66(2): 117-123. doi:10.1590/0034-737x201966020006
Wricke, G. 1962. Uber eine methode zur refassung der okologischen streubretite in feldversuchen. Flazenzuecht. 47: 92-96.
