Journals / Turkish Journal Of Field Crops / 2016 / Cilt: 21 - Sayı: 1

PATTERN ANALYSIS OF TURKISH BREAD WHEAT LANDRACES AND CULTIVARS FOR GRAIN AND FLOUR QUALITY

Pages
120–130
Publication Date
2016-06-01
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)

Also, our results were very contributive in selection of precious pure lines for further breeding programs.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This research was carried out to characterize both 200 pure lines selected from Turkish bread wheat landraces and 25 Turkish bread wheat cultivars based on 3 grain quality traits [thousand kernel weight (TKW), protein content (PC), Zeleny sedimentation test (ZSDS)] and 5 mixograph parameters.
📊
Key Findings & Data:They were also proved to be highly diverse for 8 quality trait values (both mixograph and grain quality) to breeders and end-users.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Also, our results were very contributive in selection of precious pure lines for further breeding programs.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Landraces · Mixograph · Pattern Analysis

Abstract

This research was carried out to characterize both 200 pure lines selected from Turkish bread wheat landraces and 25 Turkish bread wheat cultivars based on 3 grain quality traits [thousand kernel weight (TKW), protein content (PC), Zeleny sedimentation test (ZSDS)] and 5 mixograph parameters. Univariate and Multivariate (clustering and ordination) techniques were used to investigate the diversity present among the pure lines and cultivars. Both cluster and ordination analyses suggested that there were ten groups of studied genotypes. Applying genotype-by-trait (GT) biplot analysis to the multiple quality trait data revealed that GT-biplot graphically displayed the interrelationships among traits and facilitated visual comparison of pure lines and selection. The results also showed that, based on the quality traits, the pure lines in different groups were belonged to different provinces of Turkey. They were also proved to be highly diverse for 8 quality trait values (both mixograph and grain quality) to breeders and end-users. Especially most of the pure lines had higher PC, midline peak value of mixogram (MPV), midline time x = 8 min integral of mixogram (MTxI) and ZSDS values than some of the cultivars. Also, our results were very contributive in selection of precious pure lines for further breeding programs.

🔖

Cite This Article

AKCURA, M., KOKTEN, K., AKCACIK, A. G., AYDOGAN, S. (2016). PATTERN ANALYSIS OF TURKISH BREAD WHEAT LANDRACES AND CULTIVARS FOR GRAIN AND FLOUR QUALITY. Turkish Journal Of Field Crops, Cilt: 21 - Sayı: 1, 120–130. https://ajindex.com/articles/180852

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Aghaee, M., R. Mohammadi and S. Nabovati. 2010. Agromorphological characterization of durum wheat accessions using pattern analysis. Aust J Crop Sci 4 505-514
  2. Ahmadizadeh, M., H. Shahbazi, M. Valizadeh and M. Zaefizadeh. 2011. Genetic diversity of dururm wheat landraces using multivariate analysis under normal irrigation and drought stress conditions. Afr J Agric Res 6(1):2294-2302
  3. Akcura, M. 2006. Characterization of Turkish winter bread wheat landraces genetic resource. PhD. Thesis. Selcuk University Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, p 226. (in Turkish) Akcura, M. 2009. Genetic variability and interrelationship among grain yield and some quality traits in Turkish winter durum wheat landraces. Turk J Agric For 33:547–556.
  4. Akcura, M. and A. Topal. 2006. Phenotypic variability of Turkish winter bread wheat landraces. J of Plant Res 2:8–16 (in Turkish). Akcura, M. 2011. The relationships of some traits in Turkish winter bread wheat landraces. Turk J Agric For 35(2):115- 125. AACC 2000. Approved Methods of the American Association of Cereal Chemists, 10th ed. Methods 08-01, 44-15A, 46-11A. American Association of Cereal Chemists AACC, St Paul, MN, USA Bardsley, D. and I. Thomas. 2005. Valuing local wheat landraces for agrobiodiversity conservation in Northeast Turkey. Agric Ecos Environ 106:407–412.
  5. Belay, G., T. Tesemma, E. Bechere and D. Mitiku. 1995. Natural and human selection for purplegrain tetraploid wheats in the Ethiopian highlands. Genet Resour Crop Ev 42(4):387–391.
  6. Bordes, J., G. Branlard, FX. Oury, G. Charmet and F Balfourier. 2008. Agronomic characteristics, grain quality and flour rheology of 372 bread wheats in a worldwide core collection. J Cereal Sci 48: 569–579.
  7. Brush, S.B. and E. Meng. 1998. Farmers’ valuation and conservation of crop genetic resources. Genet Resour Crop Ev 45:139–150.
  8. Chung, O.K., J.B. Ohm, M.S. Caley and B.W. Seabourn. 2001. Prediction of baking characteristics of hard winter wheat flours using computer analysed mixograph parameters. Cereal Chem 78: 493-497.
  9. Cicek, M.S., P.S. Chen, S.M. and G.R. Maroof Buss. 2006. Interrelationships among agronomic and seed quality traits in an interspecific soybean recombinant inbred population. Crop Sci 46:1253-1259.
  10. DeLacy, I.H., M. Cooper and K.E. Basford. 1996. Relationships among analytical methods used to study genotype-byenvironment interactions and evaluation of their impact on response to selection. In ‘Genotype-by-environment interaction’. (Eds MS Kang, HG Gauch