SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Tekirdağ Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 23 Sayı: 1

Evaluation of Reactions of Different Wheat Genotypes to Common Bunt (Tilletia foetida) Using GGE Biplot Analysis

Farklı Buğday Genotiplerinin Sürme (Tilletia foetida) Hastalığına Reaksiyonlarının GGE Biplot Analizi Kullanılarak Değerlendirilmesi

Kadir Akan(KIRSEHIR AHI EVRAN UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-5133-0032
Ahmet Çat(SİİRT ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-5638-0319
Onur Hocaoğlu(ÇANAKKALE ONSEKİZ MART ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-9439-8969
Alaettin Keçeli(PAMUKKALE ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-1263-8952
Kamil Kara(KIRIKKALE ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-7729-4532
Taşkın Erol(KIRIKKALE ÜNİVERSİTESİ, KIRIKKALE MESLEK YÜKSEKOKULU)0000-0002-4263-3776
İlkay Yavaş(AYDIN ADNAN MENDERES ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-6863-9631
Mehmet Tekin(AKDENİZ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-3447-1586
Kander Koç0000-0002-6784-8423
Pages
50–60
Publication Date
2026-01-07
🏛️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)

The genotype ranking based on reaction groups generally demonstrated consistency with the GGE Biplot results, and it was concluded that the GGE Biplot method is efficacious for selecting bunt-resistant and stable materials.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Tilletia laevis (syn.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study evaluated the reactions of 50 wheat lines at the preliminary yield stage to bunt disease under artificial epidemic conditions during the 2023-2024 growing season at locations in Antalya, Aydın, Çanakkale, Denizli, Kırıkkale, Kırşehir, Mersin, and Siirt.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The genotype ranking based on reaction groups generally demonstrated consistency with the GGE Biplot results, and it was concluded that the GGE Biplot method is efficacious for selecting bunt-resistant and stable materials.
🔬Design:Experimental Field Trial
📍Scope:2023-2024 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Buğday · Sürme hastalığı · Hastalık reaksiyonu

Abstract

Tilletia laevis (syn. Tilletia foetida), the causative agent of common bunt, is a spike disease that negatively impacts global wheat production and quality. This study evaluated the reactions of 50 wheat lines at the preliminary yield stage to bunt disease under artificial epidemic conditions during the 2023-2024 growing season at locations in Antalya, Aydın, Çanakkale, Denizli, Kırıkkale, Kırşehir, Mersin, and Siirt. Field trials were conducted at each location with three replications using a randomized block design. Disease spores were inoculated at a rate of 0.5% onto seeds weighing approximately 4 g. In disease reaction assessments, the number of diseased and total spikes for each genotype was enumerated to calculate the percentage of bunt disease. Reactions of susceptible control genotypes were determined to be between 90-100%, indicating that the results of the study were reliable. Reactions were classified as 0% (Immun), 0.1-10.0% (Resistant), 10.1-25.0% (Moderately Resistant), 25.1-40% (Moderately Susceptible), 40.1-70.0% (Susceptible), and 70.1%+ (Highly Susceptible). Additionally, genotype and genotype-environment (GGE) interactions were analyzed using the GGE Biplot method, which accounted for 97.07% of the total variation. The genotype ranking based on reaction groups generally demonstrated consistency with the GGE Biplot results, and it was concluded that the GGE Biplot method is efficacious for selecting bunt-resistant and stable materials. In conclusion, utilizing the scale to assess the reaction of wheat to common bunt provides reliable results. Therefore, materials identified in the resistant group can be utilized as genitors in bunt disease resistance breeding programs. The results obtained from this study are important in terms of reducing the use of fungicides, in the management with the disease and effectively control the disease agent.

Özet

Tilletia laevis (syn. Tilletia foetida) etmeninin neden olduğu sürme hastalığı küresel düzeyde buğday üretim ve kalitesini olumsuz etkileyen önemli bir başak hastalığıdır. Bu çalışmada, 50 adet ön verim kademesinde bulunan buğday hattının, 2023-2024 yetiştirme sezonunda Antalya, Aydın, Çanakkale, Denizli, Kırıkkale, Kırşehir, Mersin ve Siirt lokasyonlarında yapay epidemi koşullarında sürme hastalığına karşı göstermiş oldukları reaksiyonları değerlendirilmiştir. Çalışmada test edilen buğday hatları tarla koşullarında, her lokasyonda tesadüf blokları deneme desenine göre üç tekerrürlü olacak şekilde gerçekleştirilmiştir. Sürme sporları her bir test edilen buğday genotiplerine yaklaşık 4 gram olacak şekilde %0.5 oranında inoküle edilmiştir. Hastalık reaksiyon değerlendirmelerinde, her bir buğday genotipi için hastalıklı ve toplam başaklar sayılmış ve yüzde (%) sürme hastalık oranı hesaplanmıştır. Ek olarak, hassas kontrol genotiplerinin hastalık reaksiyonları %90-100 olarak belirlenmiş olup, sonuçlar araştırmanın güvenilir olduğu şeklinde yorumlanmıştır. Reaksiyonlar %0 (İmmun), %0.1-10.0 (Dayanıklı), %10.1-25.0 (Orta Dayanıklı), %25.1-40 (Orta Hassas), %40.1-70.0 (Hassas) ve %70.1+ (Çok Hassas) olarak gruplandırılarak değerlendirilmiştir. Ayrıca, genotip ve genotip-çevre (GGE) etkileşimleri GGE Biplot yöntemi kullanılarak analiz edilmiş olup, analiz toplam varyasyonun %97.07'sini açıklamıştır. Reaksiyon gruplarına göre yapılan genotip sıralaması genel olarak GGE Biplot sonuçları ile tutarlılık gösterirken, GGE Biplot yöntemi ile yapılan sınıflandırmanın sürme hastalığına dayanıklı ve stabil materyallerin seleksiyonu için kullanışlı olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Sonuç olarak, buğdayda sürme hastalığının reaksiyonlarını değerlendirmek için ölçeğin kullanımı güvenilir sonuçlar vermektedir. Bu nedenle, dayanıklı grupta belirlenen materyallerin sürme hastalığı dayanıklılık ıslah programlarında genitör olarak kullanılabilir. Bu çalışmadan elde edilen sonuçlar, sürme hastalığı ile mücadelede fungusit kullanımı azaltmak ve hastalık etmeni ile etkili bir şekilde mücadele etmek açısından önem arz etmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Akan, K., Çat, A., Hocaoğlu, O., Keçeli, A., Kara, K., Erol, T., Yavaş, İ., Tekin, M., Koç, K. (2026). Evaluation of Reactions of Different Wheat Genotypes to Common Bunt (Tilletia foetida) Using GGE Biplot Analysis. Tekirdağ Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 23 Sayı: 1, 50–60. https://doi.org/10.33462/jotaf.1540866

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (44)

  1. Akan, K., Mert, Z., Çetin L., Albostan, S., Düsü̧nceli, F. and Yazar, S. (2005). Reaction of some registered wheat cultivars to common bunt caused by (Tilletia foetida (Wallr.) and Tilletia caries (D.C.) Tul.) in Ankara Conditions. Türkiye II. Seed Congress. 09-11 November, p. 316-322, Adana, Türkiye.
  2. Akan, K., Cat, A., Hocaoglu, O. and Tekin, M. (2023). Evaluating scald reactions of some Turkish barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) varieties using GGE Biplot analysis. Agronomy, 13(12): 2975.
  3. Akçura, M. and Akan, K. (2018). Assessment of the reactions of pure lines selected from Turkish bread wheat landraces against bunt disease (Tilletia foetida) with the GGE-Biplot method. Plant Genetic Resources, 16(4): 325-333.
  4. Aktaş, H. (2001). Önemli Hububat Hastalıkları ve Sürvey Yöntemleri. T.C. Tarım ve Köyişleri Bakanlığı. Tarımsal Araştırmalar Genel Müdürlüğü. Bitki Sağlığı Araştırmaları Daire Başkanlığı, Ankara, Türkiye.
  5. Aktaş, H. ve Durmaz, A. (2023). Makarnalık yerel buğday genotiplerinin (Triticum durum L.) bazı tarımsal özellikler bakımından karakterizasyonu. Tekirdağ Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 20(4): 740-754.
  6. Aydoğdu, M. and Kaya, Y. (2020). Reactions of spring wheat varieties to common bunt (Tilletia laevis) in Turkey. Cereal Research Communications, 48(3): 333-339.
  7. Das, A., Parihar, A. K., Saxena, D., Singh, D., Singha, K. D., Kushwaha, K. P. S., Chand, R., Bal, R. S., Chandra, S. and Gupta, S. (2019). Deciphering genotype-by-environment interaction for targeting test environments and rust resistant genotypes in field pea (Pisum sativum L.). Frontiers in Plant Science, 10: 825.
  8. Dodov, D. and Todorova, V. (1974). Physiological specialization of common bunt of wheat (Tilletia levis (Kuhn) and Tilletia tritici (Bjerk.) Wint.) in Bulgaria. Academic of Science, 25: 181- 197.
  9. Dumalasová, V. and Bartoš, P. (2007). Reaction of winter wheat cultivars to common bunt Tilletia tritici (Bjerk.) Wint. and T. laevis Kühn. Plant Protection Science, 43(4): 138.
  10. DumalasoVá, V. and Bartoš, P. (2010). Reaction of wheat, alternative wheat and triticale cultivars to common bunt. Czech Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding, 46(1): 14-20.
  11. Dumalasova, V., Leiova-Svobodova, L. and Bartos P (2014). Common bunt resistance of Czech and European winter wheat cultivars and breeder lines. Czech Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding 50: 201-207.
  12. Dumble, S., Bernal, E. and Villardon, P. G. (2022). GGEBiplots: GGE Biplots with ‘ggplot2′. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/GGEBiplots/GGEBiplots.pdf (Accessed Date: 18.07.2024).
  13. Egesi, C. N., Onyeka, T. J. and Asiedu, R. (2009). Environmental stability of resistance to anthracnose and virus diseases of water yam (Dioscorea alata). African Journal of Agricultural Research, 4(2): 113-118.
  14. Erdemci, İ., Yaşar, M. and Koç, M. (2023). Assignment of resistance stability of chickpea genotypes tested in multi-environments against ascochyta blight using GGE biplot analysis. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 167(1): 123-132.
  15. Gabriel, K. R. (1971). The biplot graphic display of matrices with application to principal component analysis. Biometrika, 58(3): 453-467.
  16. Goates, B. J. (1996) Common bunt and dwarf bunt. Bunt and Smut Diseases of Wheat: Concepts and Methods of Disease Management. Ed(s): Wilcoxson, R. D. and Saari, E. E., CIMMYT, Mexico City, Mexico.
  17. Hocaoğlu, O. ve Akçura, M. (2017). Batı Anadolu ve Marmara bölgelerinden ve çeşitlerinden elde edilen seçilmiş ekmeklik buğday yerli saf hatlarının mineral içeriğinin GGE biplot metoduyla değerlendirilmesi. Tekirdağ Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(Özel Sayı): 71-76.
  18. Hoffman, J. A. and Metzger, R. J. (1976). Current status of virulence genes and pathogenic races of the wheat bunt fungi in the northwestern USA. Phytopathology, 66: 657-660.
  19. İren, S., Maden, S. veCoşkun, H. (1982). Türkiye'de 1980 yılında buğdaylarda görülen sürme hastalığı (Tilletia spp.) türleri, bunların geçmiş yıllarla karşılaştırılması ve hastalık çıkışına tohum ilaçlarının etkinliği. Bitki Koruma Bülteni, 22(2): 61-71.
  20. Joshi, A. K., Ortiz‐Ferrara, G., Crossa, J., Singh, G., Alvarado, G., Bhatta, M. R., Duveiller, E., Sharma, R. C., Pandit, D. B., Siddique, A. B. Das, S. Y., Sharma, R. N. and Chand, R. (2007). Associations of environments in South Asia based on spot blotch disease of wheat caused by Cochliobolus sativus. Crop Science, 47(3): 1071-1081.
  21. Kadariya, M., Glover, K. D., Mergoum, M. and Osborne, L. E. (2008). Biplot analysis of agronomic and Fusarium head blight resistance traits in spring wheat. Journal of Crop Improvement, 22(2): 147-170.
  22. Kempton, R. A. (1984). The use of biplots in interpreting variety by environment interactions. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 103(1): 123-135.
  23. Kumar, S., Baranwal, D. K., Kumar, A., Gupta, R. N. and Kumar, A. (2017). G× E Interaction analysis for yield and major diseases in chickpea under rice fallow land of Bihar. Environment and Ecology, 35: 1238-1243.
  24. Lillemo, M., Singh, R. P. and van Ginkel, M. (2010). Identification of stable resistance to powdery mildew in wheat based on parametric and nonparametric methods. Crop Science, 50(2): 478-485.
  25. Merrick, L. F., Glover, K. D., Yabwalo, D. and Byamukama, E. (2020). Use of genotype by yield* trait (GYT) analysis to select hard red spring wheat with elevated performance for agronomic and disease resistance traits. Crop Breeding, Genetics and Genomics, 2(2): e200009.
  26. Mohammadi, R. (2019). Genotype by yield* trait biplot for genotype evaluation and trait profiles in durum wheat. Cereal Research Communications, 47(3): 541-551.
  27. Ohunakin, A. O., Odiyi, A. C. and Akinyele, B. O. (2021). Genetic variance components and GGE interaction of tropical maize genotypes under Northern leaf blight disease infection. Cereal Research Communications, 49: 277-283.
  28. Omrani, A. and Roohparvar, R. (2023). Investigation of wheat genotypes' resistance to stem rust through GGE biplot analysis. Plant Protection (Scientific Journal of Agriculture), 46(3): 83-97.
  29. Öztürk, İ. (2024). Genotype and environment effect on yield and quality parameters and stability in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars under rainfed conditions. Tekirdağ Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(2): 324-334.
  30. Parihar, A. K., Basandrai, A. K., Sirari, A., Dinakaran, D., Singh, D., Kannan, K., Kushawaha, P. S., Adinarayan, M., Akram, M., Latha, T. K. S., Paranidharan, V. and Gupta, S. (2017). Assessment of mung- bean genotypes for durable resistance to yellow mosaic disease: Genotype × environment interactions. Plant Breeding, 136: 94-100.
  31. R Core Team (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/ Statistical analysis of a yield trial, (Erişim Tarihi: 18.06.2024).
  32. R Studio Team (2022). RStudio: Integrated Development for R. https://www.rstudio.com, (Erişim Tarihi: 18.06.2024).
  33. Reddy, B. D., Kumar, B., Reddy, M. S., Krishna, K. S., Karthik, S. and Kumar, R. (2023). Identification of elite pigeonpea genotypes against Fusarium wilt and sterility mosaic disease through AMMI and GGE biplot analysis. Legume Research-An International Journal, 46(1): 104-111.
  34. Sandhu, P. S., Brar, K. S., Chauhan, J. S., Meena, P. D., Awasthi, R. P., Rathi, A. S., Kumar, A., Gupta, J. C., Kolte, S. J. and Manhas, S. S. (2015). Host–pathogen interactions of Brassica genotypes for white rust (Albugo candida) disease severity under aided epiphytotic conditions in India. Phytoparasitica, 43: 197-207.
  35. Sankar, S. M., Singh, S. P., Prakash, G., Satyavathi, C. T., Soumya, S. L., Yadav, Y., Sharma, L. D., Rao, R. D., Nirupma, S. and Srivastava, R. K. (2021). Deciphering genotype-by-environment interaction for target environmental delineation and identification of stable resistant sources against foliar blast disease of pearl millet. Frontiers in Plant Science, 12: 656158.
  36. SAS Institute (2016). JMP ®, Version 13.2.0. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, 1989–2025.
  37. Sharma M, Ghosh R, Telangre R, Rathore A, Saifulla M, Mahalinga DM, Saxena D. R. and Jain, Y. K. (2016). Environmental influences on pigeonpea-Fusarium udum interactions and stability of genotypes to fusarium wilt. Frontiers in Plant Science, 7: 253.
  38. Szunics, L. and Szunics, L. (1990). Data on the bunt infection of wheat varieties. Növénytermelés, 39: 297–304:
  39. Tekin, M. (2023). Genetic variation in Turkish bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) varieties for resistance to common bunt. Agronomy, 13(10): 2491.
  40. Veisz, O., Szunics, L. and Szunics, L. (2000). Effect of common bunt on the frost resistance and winter hardiness of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) lines containing Bt genes. Euphytica, 114: 159-164.
  41. Villegas-Fernández, A. M., Sillero, J. C., Emeran, A. A., Winkler, J., Raffiot, B., Tay, J., Flores, F. and Rubiales, D. (2009). Identification and multi-environment validation of resistance to Botrytis fabae in Vicia faba. Field Crops Research, 114(1): 84-90.
  42. Yan, W. (2014). Crop Variety Trials: Data Management and Analysis. John Wiley & Sons. Yan, W. and Falk, D. E. (2002). Biplot analysis of host-by-pathogen data. Plant Disease, 86(12): 1396-1401.
  43. Yan, W., Hunt, L. A., Sheng, Q. and Szlavnics, Z. (2000). Cultivar evaluation and mega‐environment investigation based on the GGE biplot. Crop Science, 40(3): 597-605.
  44. Zobel, R. W., Wright, M. J. and Gauch Jr, H. G. (1988). Statistical analysis of a yield trial. Agronomy Journal, 80(3): 388-393.