SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türk Tarım ve Doğa Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Volume: 13 Issue: 3

Phenotypic Responses of Forage Kochia under Different Environment Conditions

Nur Koç Koyun(SELCUK UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE)0000-0002-3053-6127
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-07-28
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

These findings suggest that the ecological success of forage kochia in different environmental systems may arise from the combination of flexible trait means and consistent genotypic ranking.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Phenotypic plasticity is a key factor in plant adaptation to heterogeneous environments.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Regression slopes (β) were low, indicating that genotype performance ranking was largely maintained.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These findings suggest that the ecological success of forage kochia in different environmental systems may arise from the combination of flexible trait means and consistent genotypic ranking.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Climate Change · Forage Shrub · Plant Adaptation

Abstract

Phenotypic plasticity is a key factor in plant adaptation to heterogeneous environments. However, the extent to which plastic responses vary among traits under stress prone conditions remains poorly understood. This study examined plasticity, stability, and phenotypic integration at the trait level in forage kochia (Bassia prostrata), a perennial semi shrub species tolerant to drought and saline soils, commonly used in rangeland improvement. Plants were grown in three different environmental systems: a stress prone area (SASs), an irrigated site (IC), and an organically amended site (FWM). Nine morphological and color related traits were evaluated. Plasticity indices, coefficients of variation (CV), and Finlay–Wilkinson regression were used. Trait associations were calculated using Spearman’s rank correlation and adjusted with the Benjamini–Hochberg procedure. Trait correlation networks were constructed for each environment, and network metrics were calculated. Most traits exhibited high plasticity indices. Regression slopes (β) were low, indicating that genotype performance ranking was largely maintained. Within environment variation was high in the SASs environment. In the IC environment, stem color showed extreme variation, while leaf hairiness consistently had the lowest CV values across all three environments.Network analysis revealed that during the SASs environment, vegetative and generative traits separated into two distinct components; during the IC environment, a fully connected network was formed; and during the FWM environment, a sparse network with only two independent correlations was observed. These findings suggest that the ecological success of forage kochia in different environmental systems may arise from the combination of flexible trait means and consistent genotypic ranking.

🔖

Cite This Article

Koyun, N. K. (2026). Phenotypic Responses of Forage Kochia under Different Environment Conditions. Türk Tarım ve Doğa Bilimleri Dergisi, Volume: 13 Issue: 3. https://doi.org/10.30910/turkjans.1870371

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (42)

  1. Acar, R., Koc, N. (2019). The determination of yield and some yield components of different forage kochia (Kochia prostrata (L.) Schrad.) phenotypes collected and grown from natural areas. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 2019, Vol. 28, No. 2A, 1429-1433
  2. Aygün, C., Olgun, M. (2015). The observation criteria belonging to shrub and bushy plants. (Çalı ve Çalımsı Bitkilere ait Gözlem Kriterleri). Gıda, Tarım ve Hayvancılık Bakanlığı ISBN: 978-605-68346-0-8, Eskişehir (In Turkish).
  3. Auler, P. A., & do Amaral, M. N. (2025). Marks that persist: DNA methylation in plant transgenerational memory and inheritance. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 110680.
  4. Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal statistical society: series B (Methodological), 57(1), 289-300.
  5. Bloom, A.J., Chapin, F. S., & Mooney, H. A. (1985). Resource limitation in plants-an economic analogy. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst, 16, 363-392.
  6. Bonser, S. P., & Aarssen, L. W. (2009). Interpreting reproductive allometry: individual strategies of allocation explain size-dependent reproduction in plant populations. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 11(1), 31-40.
  7. Chapin III, F. S., Schulze, E. D., & Mooney, H. A. (1990). The ecology and economics of storage in plants. Annual review of ecology and systematics, 423-447.
  8. Crisp, P. A., Ganguly, D., Eichten, S. R., Borevitz, J. O., & Pogson, B. J. (2016). Reconsidering plant memory: Intersections between stress recovery, RNA turnover, and epigenetics. Science advances, 2(2), e1501340.
  9. Dias, L.A.S. & Resende, M.D.V. (2001). Experimentation in breeding (Chapter 11). Genetic Improvement of Cacao (Eds L.A.S. Dias, Translation by Abreu-Reichart C.E., Viçosa, M.G.), Brazil, FAO. http://icppgr.ecoport.org/ep?SearchType=earticleView&earticleId=197&page=2730 (04.06.2026)
  10. Ehleringer, J. R., Mooney, H. A. (1978). Leaf hairs: effects on physiological activity and adaptive value to a desert shrub. Oecologia, 37(2), 183-200.
  11. Finlay, K. W., & Wilkinson, G. N. (1963). The analysis of adaptation in a plant-breeding programme. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 14, 742–754.
  12. Glenn, E. P., Brown, J. J., & Blumwald, E. (1999). Salt tolerance and crop potential of halophytes. Critical reviews in plant sciences, 18(2), 227-255.
  13. Gökkuş, A. (2020). A review on the factors causing deterioration of rangelands in Turkey. Turkish Journal of Range and Forage Science, 1(1), 28–34.
  14. Grenier, S., Barre, P., Litrico, I. (2016). Phenotypic plasticity and selection: nonexclusive mechanisms of adaptation. Scientifica, 6(1), 7021701.
  15. Hagberg, A. A., Schult, D. A., & Swart, P. J. (2008). Exploring network structure, dynamics, and function using NetworkX. Proceedings of the 7th Python in Science Conference (SciPy2008), 11–15.
  16. Hess, C., Levine, J. M., Turcotte, M. M., Hart, S. P. (2022). Phenotypic plasticity promotes species coexistence. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 6(9), 1256-1261.
  17. Hunter, J. D. (2007). Matplotlib: A 2D graphics environment. Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90–95.
  18. Jacob, S., & Legrand, D. (2021). Phenotypic plasticity can reverse the relative extent of intra-and interspecific variability across a thermal gradient. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 288(1953), 20210428.
  19. Kendal, E., & Doğan, Y. (2015). Stability of a candidate and cultivars (Hordeum vulgare L) by GGE biplot analysis of multi-environment yield trial in spring barley. Agriculture & Forestry/Poljoprivreda i šumarstv, 61(4), 307.
  20. Khalili, M., & Pour-Aboughadareh, A. (2016). Parametric and non-parametric measures for evaluating yield stability and adaptability in barley doubled haploid lines. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 18(3), 789-803.
  21. Koç Koyun, N. (2024). The Effect of Different Environmental Conditions on Some Morphological Characteristics of Forage Kochia Populations. 10th International Conference on Environmental Science and Technology ICOEST June 05-09, 2024, Sarajevo p: 24-31.
  22. Koç Koyun, N. (2021). The Determination of Genetic Relationships and Some Botanical Properties of Forage Kochia (Kochia prostrata (L) Scrad) Population Grown in Konya Conditions. The Graduate School of Natural and Applied Science of Selçuk University. PhD Thesis, Konya, 235 p (In Turkish).
  23. Koç Koyun, N., & Acar, R. (2021). The determination of botanical properties of forage kochia population grown in Konya conditions. International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Agricultural Research (Online), 5(3), 311-321.
  24. Li, X., Jimoh, S. O., Li, Y., Duan, J., Cui, Y., Jin, K.,. & Zhang, Y. (2022). Stress memory and phyllosphere/soil legacy underlie tolerance and plasticity of Leymus chinensis to periodic drought risk. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 312, 108717.
  25. Lian, L., & de Los Campos, G. (2016). FW: an R package for Finlay–Wilkinson regression that incorporates genomic/pedigree information and covariance structures between environments. G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics, 6(3), 589-597.
  26. Naing, A. H., Kim, C. K. (2021). Abiotic stress‐induced anthocyanins in plants: Their role in tolerance to abiotic stresses. Physiologia Plantarum, 172(3), 1711-1723.
  27. Nicotra, A. B., Atkin, O. K., Bonser, S. P., Davidson, A. M., Finnegan, E. J., Mathesius, U.,. & van Kleunen, M. (2010). Plant phenotypic plasticity in a changing climate. Trends in plant science, 15(12), 684-692.
  28. Pichancourt, J. B., Van Klinken, R. D. (2012). Phenotypic plasticity influences the size, shape and dynamics of the geographic distribution of an invasive plant. PloS one, 7(2), e32323
  29. Rangaswami Ayyangar, G. N., & Venkataramana Reddy, T. (1939). The occurrence and inheritance of hairiness of leaf tip in sorghum. Madras Agricultural Journal, 1939, Vol. 27, 210-14
  30. Rio, S., Carvalho, H. F., Sanchez, J.I. (2024). Best Linear Unbiased Prediction of Genotype-by-Environment Metrics. GEmetrics R package. CRAN. http://mirror.iscas.ac.cn/CRAN/web/packages/GEmetrics/refman/GEmetrics.html (04.06.2026).
  31. Reynolds, J. F., Smith, D. M. S., Lambin, E. F., Turner, B. L., Mortimore, M., Batterbury, S. P. J., … Walker, B. (2007). Global desertification: building a science for dryland development. Science, 316, 847–851.
  32. Sall, J., Stephens, M. L., Lehman, A., & Loring, S. (2017). JMP start statistics: a guide to statistics and data analysis using JMP. Sas Institute.
  33. Sokal, R. R., & Rohlf, F. J. (1995). Biometry: The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research (3rd ed.). W.H. Freeman and Company, New York
  34. Tan, J. W., Tesfamicael, K., Hu, Y., Shinde, H., Edwards, E. J., Tricker, P., & Lopez, C. M. R. (2024). Transcriptome Analysis Reveals Long-Term Somatic Memory of Stress in The Woody Perennial Crop, Grapevine Vitis Vinifera cv. Cabernet Sauvignon. bioRxiv, 2024-04.
  35. Valladares, F., Gianoli, E., & Gómez, J. M. (2007). Ecological limits to plant phenotypic plasticity. New Phytologist, 176, 749–763.
  36. Valladares, F., Sanchez-Gómez, D., & Zavala, M. A. (2006). Quantitative estimation of phenotypic plasticity: bridging the gap between the evolutionary concept and its ecological applications. Journal of Ecology, 94, 1103–1116.
  37. Van Rossum, G., & Drake, F. L. (2009). Python 3 Reference Manual. CreateSpace, Scotts Valley, CA
  38. Waldron, B. L., Greenhalgh, L. K., ZoBell, D. R., Olson, K. C., Davenport, B. W., & Palmer, M. D. (2011). Forage kochia (Kochia prostrata) increases nutritional value, carrying capacity, and livestock performance on semiarid rangelands. Forage & Grazinglands, 9(1), 1-6.
  39. Weiner, J. (2017). Applying plant ecological knowledge to increase agricultural sustainability. Journal of Ecology, 105(4), 865-870.
  40. Zar, J. H. (1972). Significance testing of the Spearman rank correlation coefficient. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 67(339), 578-580.
  41. Li, X., Jimoh, S. O., Li, Y., Duan, J., Cui, Y., Jin, K.,. & Zhang, Y. (2022). Stress memory and phyllosphere/soil legacy underlie tolerance and plasticity of Leymus chinensis to periodic drought risk. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 312, 108717.
  42. Nicotra, A. B., Atkin, O. K., Bonser, S. P., Davidson, A. M., Finnegan, E. J., Mathesius, U.,. & van Kleunen, M. (2010). Plant phenotypic plasticity in a changing climate. Trends in plant science, 15(12), 684-692.