Journals / Turkish Journal Of Field Crops / 2021 / Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 1

INTEGRATING DIFFERENT STABILITY MODELS TO INVESTIGATE HIGH YIELDING SAFFLOWER (Charthamus tinctorius L.) GENOTYPES

Pages
103–110
Publication Date
2021-06-29
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)

Present findings revealed that Group I (S⁽⁶⁾, NP⁽²⁾, NP⁽³⁾, NP⁽⁴⁾, 𝘒R) could be used as selection criteria to determine high-yield and stable genotypes.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study was conducted to investigate seed yield stability of the safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) genotypes grown for five years (2014 – 2018) under different climate conditions of Central Anatolia Region with large differences in climate conditions year to year in Turkey.
📊
Key Findings & Data:A total of 17 safflower genotypes were used in this study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Present findings revealed that Group I (S⁽⁶⁾, NP⁽²⁾, NP⁽³⁾, NP⁽⁴⁾, 𝘒R) could be used as selection criteria to determine high-yield and stable genotypes.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2014 – 2018 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Safflower · seed yield · stability

Abstract

This study was conducted to investigate seed yield stability of the safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) genotypes grown for five years (2014 – 2018) under different climate conditions of Central Anatolia Region with large differences in climate conditions year to year in Turkey. A total of 17 safflower genotypes were used in this study. Experiments were conducted in randomized blocks design with four replications. The parameters of S⁽¹⁾, S⁽²⁾, S⁽³⁾, S⁽⁶⁾, NP⁽¹⁾, NP⁽²⁾, NP⁽³⁾, NP⁽⁴⁾, Wᵢ², σ²ᵢ, s²dᵢ, bᵢ, CVi, θ₍ᵢ₎ and θᵢ, 𝘒R were used to determine seed yield stability of the genotypes. Biplot graphs were used for visual assessment of the relationships among the methods utilized. Göktürk, Dinçer, G5 and G9 genotypes were identified as stable based on majority of the methods and they had seed yields greater than the general averages (2.90, 2.85, 2.83 and 2.82 t ha-1, respectively). Based on the relationships among the methods, present parameters were divided into four groups. Present findings revealed that Group I (S⁽⁶⁾, NP⁽²⁾, NP⁽³⁾, NP⁽⁴⁾, 𝘒R) could be used as selection criteria to determine high-yield and stable genotypes. Instead of using several methods to identify stable genotypes, a single parameter from each group of methods will be sufficient. As it was in multi-environment experiments, stability analyses had significant contributions for identification of high-yield and stable genotypes in multi-year experiments. The stable and high-yield genotype G9 was registered in 2019 in Turkey under the name of “Koc”.

🔖

Cite This Article

KOÇ, H. (2021). INTEGRATING DIFFERENT STABILITY MODELS TO INVESTIGATE HIGH YIELDING SAFFLOWER (Charthamus tinctorius L.) GENOTYPES. Turkish Journal Of Field Crops, Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 1, 103–110. https://ajindex.com/articles/217494

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Akcura, M. and Y.Kaya. 2008. Non-parametric stability methods for interpreting genotype by environment interaction of bread wheat genotypes (Triticum aestivum L.). Genetics and Molecular Biology 31(4): 906-913.
  2. Akcura, M., Y. Kaya, S. Taner. 2009. Evaluation of durum wheat genotypes using parametric and nonparametric stability statistics. Turkish Journal of Field Crops 14(2): 111-122.
  3. Akcura, M., Y. Kaya, S. Taner, R. Ayrancı. 2006. Parametric stability analyses for grain yield of durum wheat. Plant Soil and Environment 52(6):254. Akcura, M. and A. Turan. 2020. Investigation of Genotype × Environment Interaction with different methods in grain yield of edible cluster bean. Turkish Journal of Agricultural and Natural Sciences 7 (3): 798-805.
  4. Awoke, S. and M.K. Sharma. 2016. Parametric and non-parametric methods to describe genotype by environment interaction and grain yield stability of bread wheat. Statistics and applications. 14: 9-29.
  5. Becker, HC. and J. Leon.1988. Stability analysis in plant breeding. Plant Breed. 101:1-23.
  6. Eberhart, SAT. and WA. Russell.1966. Stability parameters for comparing varieties. Crop Sci 6:36-40.
  7. Finlay, KW. and GN. Wilkinson. 1963. Adaptation in a plant breeding programme. Aust J Agric Res. 14:742-754.
  8. Flores, F., MT. Moreno and JI. Cubero. 1998. A comparison of univariate and multivariate methods to analyze G x E interaction. Field Crops Research 56: 271-286.
  9. Fox, PN., B. Skovmand, BK. Thompson, HJ. Braun and Cormier R. 1990. Yield and adaptation of hexaploid spring triticale. Euphytica 47: 57-64.
  10. Francis, TR. and LW. Kannenberg.1978. Yield stability studies in short-season maize: I. A descriptive method for grouping genotypes. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 58: 1029-1034.
  11. Goksoy, AT., M. Sincik, M. Erdogmus, M. Ergin, S. Aytac, G, Gumuscu et all. 2019. The Parametrıc and non-parametrıc stabılıty analyses for interpretıng genotype by envıronment interactıon of some soybean genotypes. Turkish Journal Of Field Crops 24(1): 28-38.
  12. Hocaoglu, O., K. Akan and M. Akcura. 2020. Evaluating leaf rust reactions of pure bread wheat landrace lines using non-parametric statistics. Phytoparasitica 48: 261-271.
  13. Huehn, M. 1990. Non-parametric measures of phenotypic stability. Part 1: Theory. Euphytica 47: 189-199.
  14. Jamshidmoghaddam, M. and SS. Pourdad. 2013. Genotype × environment interactions for seed yield in rainfed winter safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) multi-environment trials in Iran. Euphytica 180:321-335.
  15. Kang, MS. 1993. Simult