Journals / Turkish Journal Of Field Crops / 2017 / Cilt: 22 - Sayı: 2

BIPLOT ANALYSIS OF LEAF RUST RESISTANCE IN PURE LINES SELECTED FROM EASTERN ANATOLIAN BREAD WHEAT LANDRACES OF TURKEY

Pages
227–234
Publication Date
2017-12-15
DOI
—
🏛️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)

Pure lines that were resistant or moderately resistant at all seven tested environments should be useful for breeding wheat cultivars with resistance to leaf rust in Turkey.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The present research was conducted to determine the reactions of 42 pure lines selected from bread wheat landraces of Eastern Anatolia, Turkey, against the leaf rust (Puccinia triticina) disease under field conditions across 7 environments.
📊
Key Findings & Data:GGE-biplot graph created to assess leaf rust disease was explained a 78.12% of total variation.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Pure lines that were resistant or moderately resistant at all seven tested environments should be useful for breeding wheat cultivars with resistance to leaf rust in Turkey.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:GGE-Biplot · Landraces · Leaf rust (Puccinia triticina)

Abstract

The present research was conducted to determine the reactions of 42 pure lines selected from bread wheat landraces of Eastern Anatolia, Turkey, against the leaf rust (Puccinia triticina) disease under field conditions across 7 environments. G (Genotype), GE (Genotype Environment) biplot analysis method was used to determine the reactions of landraces against leaf rust disease. GGE-biplot graph created to assess leaf rust disease was explained a 78.12% of total variation. While E3 and E2 constituted the first and second mega environments respectively, the other four environments constituted the third and fourth mega environments. The lowest PC1 values and PC2 values close to 0.0 explaining the resistance of pure lines to leaf rust at best in the biplot. Reactions of landraces varied based on their distance from the Average Environment Axis (AEA). While the pure lines with the same or similar reactions in 7 experimental environments fell close to the axis, ones with different reactions in one or more environments were relatively distant. The pure lines of EA15 and EA19 were identified as the most resistant and stable genotypes in all environments when EA42 and EA41 were the most susceptible/stable genotypes in all environments. Pure lines that were resistant or moderately resistant at all seven tested environments should be useful for breeding wheat cultivars with resistance to leaf rust in Turkey.

🔖

Cite This Article

AKCURA, M., AKAN, K., HOCAOGLU, O. (2017). BIPLOT ANALYSIS OF LEAF RUST RESISTANCE IN PURE LINES SELECTED FROM EASTERN ANATOLIAN BREAD WHEAT LANDRACES OF TURKEY. Turkish Journal Of Field Crops, Cilt: 22 - Sayı: 2, 227–234. https://ajindex.com/articles/180744

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Acorsi, C., T. Guedes, M. Coan, R. Pinto, C. Scapim, C. Pacheco, and Casela, C. 2017. Applying the generalized additive main effects and multiplicative interaction model to analysis of maize genotypes resistant to grey leaf spot. J. Agric. Sci 1-15.
  2. Akin, B., N. Zencirci, and I. Ozseven. 2008. Field resistance of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes from different countries to leaf rust (Puccinia triticina). Turk J Agric For. 32: 479-486.
  3. Alam, A. K. M., M. P. Somta, C. Jompuk, P. Chatwachirawong, and P. Srinives, 2014. Evaluation of mungbean genotypes based on yield stability and reaction to mungbean yellow mosaic virus disease. Plant Pathol. J 30: 261-268.
  4. Egesi, C. N., T. J. Onyeka, and R. Asiedu, 2009. Environmental stability of resistance to anthracnose and virus diseases of water yam (Dioscorea alata). Afr. J. Agric. Res 4: 113-118.
  5. Frutos, E., M. P. Galindo, and V. Leiva, 2014. An interactive biplot implementation in R for modeling genotype-by-environment interaction. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 28: 1629. Gabriel, K. R. 1971. The biplot graphic display of matrices with application to principal component analysis. Biometrika 58: 453-467.
  6. Gomez, K. A. and A. A. Gomez, 1984.Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. John Wiley & Sons, New York City, USA. Heitefuss, R. 2011. Wheat Diseases and Pests. J Phytopathol, 159: 324. Ilker E, F. Aykut Tonk, O. Caylak, M. Tosun, I. Ozmen, 2009. Assesment of Genotype X Environment Interactions for Grain Yield in Mazie Hybrids Using AMMI and GGE Biplot Analyses. Turkish J. of Field Crops 14(2): 123 – 135. Kadariya, M., K. D. Glover, M. Mergoum and L. E. Osborne, 2008. Biplot analysis of agronomic and Fusarium head blight resistance traits in spring wheat. J Crop Improv. 22: 147–170.
  7. Kaplan M., K. Kokten and M. Akcura, 2017. Assessment of Genotype x Trait x Environment interactions of silage maize genotypes through GGE Biplot. Chilean Journal of Agricultural Research 77, 212 – 217. Kempton, R. A. 1984. The use of biplots in interpreting variety by environment interactions. J Agric Sci. 103: 123-135.
  8. Kumar, S., D. K. Baranwal, A. Kumar, R. N. Gupta, and A. Kumar, 2017. G × E Interaction analysis for yield and major diseases in chickpea under rice fallow land of bihar. Environ Ecol. 35: 1238-1243.
  9. Lillemo, M., R. P. Singh, and M. V. Ginkel, 2010. Identification of stable resistance to powdery mildew in wheat based on parametric and non-parametric methods. Crop Sci. 50: 478–485.
  10. Madden, L.V., P. A. Paul, and