SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 13 Sayı: 2

Farklı Çevrelerde Yetiştirilen Bazı Ekmeklik Buğday (Triticum aestivum L.) Genotiplerinin Verim Ve Kalite Özellikleri Bakımından Karşılaştırılması

Mehmet Karaman(MUŞ ALPARSLAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-6176-9580
Pages
376–385
Publication Date
2025-12-24
🏛️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 biplot analysis results showed that G22 was the most ideal and stable genotype for both environments in terms of grain yield.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The study was conducted in Adıyaman Province under rainfed and supplementary irrigation conditions, using a randomized block design with four replications.
📊
Key Findings & Data:According to the ANOVA (analysis of variance) analysis results, there was significant variation at p≤0.01 level among the genotypes in all examined traits.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The biplot analysis results showed that G22 was the most ideal and stable genotype for both environments in terms of grain yield.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Buğday · verim · kalite

Abstract

The study was conducted in Adıyaman Province under rainfed and supplementary irrigation conditions, using a randomized block design with four replications. The aim of the study was to determine the productive, high quality and stable breeding material suitable for the regional conditions using the GGE (genotype, genotype x environment) biplot technique. The twenty-five spring bread wheat genotypes were the experiment material. According to the ANOVA (analysis of variance) analysis results, there was significant variation at p≤0.01 level among the genotypes in all examined traits. It was determined that there was a 22.3-41.3% increase in grain yield in supplementary irrigation conditions compared to rainfall-based conditions. Particularly, G2 showed the highest positive response to supplementary irrigation with 41.3% yield increase. Protein ratio, 0.7-18.5% higher protein values were observed in rainfall-dependent conditions. The G14 genotype gave the highest grain yields under based on rainfed conditions, while the G22, G4 and Dinç genotypes gave the highest grain yields under supplementary irrigation conditions. In terms of quality traits, G6, G7, G17, G24 and Tekin genotypes attracted attention with their high quality values. The biplot analysis results showed that G22 was the most ideal and stable genotype for both environments in terms of grain yield.

Özet

Çalışma, yağışa dayalı ve destek sulama koşullarında, tesadüf blokları deneme deseninde 4 tekrarlamalı olarak yürütülmüştür. Amaç; bölge koşullarına uygun, verimli, kaliteli ve stabil ıslah materyalini GGE (genotip, genotip x çevre) biplot tekniği ile belirlemektir. Yirmi beş yazlık ekmeklik buğday genotipi deneme materyalini oluşturmuştur. ANOVA (varyans analizi) analizi sonuçlarına göre, incelenen tüm özelliklerde genotipler arasında p≤0,01 düzeyinde önemli varyasyon olduğu belirlenmiştir. Destek sulama koşullarında, yağışa dayalı koşullara göre %22.3-41.3 arasında tane verimi artışı olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Özellikle G2 genotipi, %41.3 verim artışı ile destek sulamaya en yüksek olumlu yanıtı vermiştir. Protein oranı bakımından, yağışa dayalı koşullarda %0.7-18.5 daha yüksek protein değerleri gözlenmiştir. G14 genotipi, yağışa dayalı koşullarda, G22, G4 ile Dinç genotipleri ise destek sulama koşullarında en yüksek tane verimlerini vermiştir. Kalite özellikleri açısından G6, G7, G17, G24 ve Tekin genotipleri yüksek kalite değerleriyle dikkat çekmiştir. Biplot analiz sonuçları, tane verimi açısından her iki ortamda da G22'nin en ideal ve stabil genotip olduğunu göstermiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Karaman, M. (2025). Farklı Çevrelerde Yetiştirilen Bazı Ekmeklik Buğday (Triticum aestivum L.) Genotiplerinin Verim Ve Kalite Özellikleri Bakımından Karşılaştırılması. Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 2, 376–385. https://doi.org/10.18586/msufbd.1766699

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (39)

  1. Shewry P. R. Wheat. Journal of experimental botany, 60:6 1537-1553, 2009.
  2. Sönmez A. C. Biomass yield in bread wheat: The effect of sowing density and predicting using NDVI, KSU J. Agric Nat., 27:5 1171-1181, 2024.
  3. Lovegrove A., Pellny T. K., Hassall K. L., Plummer A., Wood A., Bellisai A., Przewieslik-Allen A., Burridge A., Ward, J. L., Shewry P. R. Historical changes in the contents and compositions of fiber components and polar metabolites in white wheat flour, Scientific reports, 10:1 1-9, 2020.
  4. Reynolds M. P., Slafer G. A., Foulkes J. M., Griffiths S., Murchie E. H., Carmo-Silva E., Asseng S., Chapman S. C., Sawkins M., Gwyn J., Flavell R. B. A wiring diagram to integrate physiological traits of wheat yield potential, Nature Food, 3:5 318-324, 2022.
  5. Devi K., Chahal S., Venkatesh K., Singh S., Tripathi S. C., Mamrutha H. M., Tiwari R. Identification of wheat genotypes resilient to terminal heat stress using GGE biplot analysis, Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 1-13, 2022.
  6. Gülhan L., Akçura M., Öztürk İ. Bazı ekmeklik buğday genotiplerinin bazı kalite özellikleri yönünden trakya bölgesine adaptasyonunun incelenmesi, Türk Tarım ve Doğa Bilimleri Dergisi, 10:3 622-630, 2023.
  7. Başer İ., Korkut K. Z., Bilgin O. Ekmeklik buğdayda kurağa dayaniklilikla ilgili özellikler arasindaki ilişkiler, Tekirdağ Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 2:3 253-259, 2005.
  8. Olgun M., Budak Başçiftçi Z., Ayter Arpacıoğlu N. G., Belen S., Katar D., Katar N., Aydın D. Bazı buğday çeşitlerinde verim, verim unsurları ve kalite parametrelerinin incelenmesi üzerine bir araştırma, Research Journal of Biology Sciences, 15:2 124-142, 2022.
  9. Mulugeta B., Tesfaye K., Geleta M., Johansson E., Hailesilassie T., Hammenhag C., Ortiz R. Multivariate analyses of Ethiopian durum wheat revealed stable and high yielding genotypes. Plos One, 17:8 e0273008.-83, 2022.
  10. Shah S. I. H., Sahito M. A., Tunio S., Pirzado A. J. Genotype-environment interactions and stability analysis of yield and yield attributes of ten contemporary wheat varieties of Pakistan, Sindh Univ. Res. J., 41:1 13-24, 2009.
  11. Barutcular C., Yildirim M., Koc M., Dizlek H., Akinci C., Sabagh A. E. L., Saneoka H., Ueda A., Islam M., Toptas I., Albayrak O., Tanrikulu A. Quality traits performance of bread wheat genotypes under drought and heat stress conditions quality traits performance of bread wheat genotypes under drought and heat stress, Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 25:12 6159-6165, 2016.
  12. Tessema A. M., Yimam A. G., Hailemariam F. M. Genetic variations of bread wheat varieties for bread-making quality traits in moisture stressed areas of Wollo, Ethiopia, Agrosyst Geosci Environ., 2024:7, e20506, 2023.
  13. Peterson C. J., Graybosch R. A., Baenziger P. S., Grombacher A. W. Genotype and environment effects on quality characteristics of hard red winter wheat, Crop Sci., 32: 98-103, 1992.
  14. Schuler S. F., Bacon R. K., Gbur E. E. Kernel and spike character influence on test weight of soft red winter wheat, Crop Sci. Society of America, 34:5 1309-1313, 1994.
  15. Atlı A. Buğday ve ürünleri kalitesi. Orta Anadolu’da Hububat Tarımının Sorunları ve Çözüm Yolları Sempozyumu, Konya, Türkiye, 1999.
  16. Troccoli A., Borrelli G. M, Vita P., Fares C., Fonzo N. Durum wheat quality: a multidisciplinary concept (review), Journal of Cereal Science, 32:99-113, 2000.
  17. Oktem A. G., Oktem A. Climatic effects on quality parameters and their relationships of bread wheat genotypes (Triticum aestivum L.) grown under semi-arid region, Asian J. of Res. in Crop Sci., 3:1 1-11, 2019.
  18. Gupta V., Mehta G., Kumar S., Ramadas S., Tiwari R., Singh G., Sharma P. AMMI and GGE biplot analysis of yield under terminal heat tolerance in wheat, Molecular Biology Reports, 50:3459-3467, 2023.
  19. Williams P., Haremein F. J., Nakkoul H., Rihawi S. Crop quality evaluation methods and guidelines. ICARDA, Aleppo, Syria, 1988.
  20. Anonymous. International Association for cereal science and technology (ICC), Vienna, Standarts No: 116/1, 2008.
  21. Gomez K. A., Gomez A. A. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. 2nd Ed. John Willey and Sons, Inc. New York. 641, 1984.
  22. Genstat. Genstat for windows (12th edition) introduction. VSN International, Hemel Hempstead, 2009.
  23. Reddy S. S., Shivaraj B., Reddy V. C., Ananda M. G. Direct effect of fertilizer and residual effect of organic manure on yield and nutrient uptake of maize (Zea mays L.) in groundnut-maize cropping system, Crop Res. Hsiao, 29:3 390-395, 2005.
  24. Jamal A., Younas W., Fawad M. Performance of wheat (Tricticum aestivum L.) as ınfluenced by application of single super phosphate alone and ın combination with different organic fertilizers ın calcareous soil of swabi, Pakistan, KSÜ Tar. Doğa Derg., 22:1 14-18, 2019.
  25. Howarth C. J., Martinez-Martin P. M. J., Cowan A. A. Griffiths I. M., Sanderson R., Lister S. J., Langdon T., Clarke S., Fradgley N., Marshall A. H. Genotype and environment affect the grain quality and yield of winter oats (Avena sativa L.) Foods, 10, 2356, 2021.
  26. Yuce I., Dumlupinar Z. Evaluation of agronomic traits and allele specific DNA markers related to some disease and quality traits in mutant Karakılçık M4 ındividuals, KSU J. Agric Nat., 26:4 861-869, 2023.
  27. Çakmak M. Ekmeklik buğday (Triticum aestivum L.) genotiplerinde başaklanma sonrası bazı fenolojik, fizyolojik ve bitkisel özellikler ile verim, kalite unsurları arasındaki ilişkilerin belirlenmesi. Yüksek lisans tezi, Selçuk Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü., Konya, Türkiye, 2010.
  28. Demir B., Şahin M., Göçmen Akacık A., Aydoğan S., Hamzaoğlu S., Gür S., Mecitoğlu Güçbilmez Ç., Türköz M. Tane iriliklerine göre sınıflandırılmış buğday çeşitlerine ait bazı kalite parametrelerinin glutopeak cihazıyla değerlendirilmesi, Ziraat Mühendisliği, 379, 35-51, 2024.
  29. Cevher C. Determination of quality criteria of wheat purchased in commodity exchanges (Eskişehir, Konya, Polatlı): The Case of Central Anatolia Region, J. of Ege Univ. Faculty of Agric., 57:3 413-423, 2020.
  30. Hruskova M., Famera O. Rediction of wheat and flour zeleny sedimentation value using NIR technique, Czech J. of Food Sci., 21, 91-96, 2003.
  31. Yan W., Tinker N. A. Biplot analysis of multi-environment trial data: Principles andapplications, Canadian J. of Plant Sci., 86:3 623-645, 2006.
  32. Kendal E., Sener O. Examination of genotype× environment interactions by GGE biplot analysis in spring durum wheat, Indian J. Genet, 75:3 341-348, 2015.
  33. Karaman M., Yıldırım M., Akıncı C. Demonstration the effectiveness of NDVI with GGE biplot model in determination of high yielding durum wheat (Triticum durum Desf.) genotypes, Genetika, 56:1 29-42, 2024.
  34. Mullualem D., Tsega A., Mengie T., Fentie D., Kassa Z., Fassil A., Wondaferew D., Gelaw T. A., Astatkie T. Genotype-by-environment interaction and stability analysis of grain yield of bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes using AMMI and GGE biplot analyses, Heliyon, 14:6 1-16, 2024.
  35. Yan W, Kang M. S., Ma B., Woods S., Cornelius P. L. GGE biplot vs. AMMI analysis of genotype-by-environment data, Crop Sci., 47 641-653, 2007.
  36. Darwish M. A., Abd El-Rady A. G., Mohamed M. M., Ghalab E., Elfanah A. M.Estimation of AMMI and GGE biplots for some bread and durum wheat genotypes, J. of Plant Production, Mansoura Univ., 13:3 75-83, 2022.
  37. Yan W., Rajcan I. Biplot analysis of test sites and trait relations of soybean in Ontario, Crop Sci., 42:1 11-20, 2002.
  38. Omrani A., Omrani S., Khodarahmi M., Shojaei S. H., Illés Á., Bojtor C., Mousavi, S. M. N., Nagy J. Evaluation of grain yield stability in some selected wheat genotypes using AMMI and GGE biplot methods, Agronomy, 12:1130 1-14, 2024.
  39. Saeidnia F., Taherian M., Nazeri S. M. Nazeri, Graphical analysis of multi-environmental trials for wheat grain yield based on GGE-biplot analysis under diverse sowing dates, BMC Plant Biol., 23:1 198, 2023.