گزینش برای تحمل به تنش خشکی در ژنوتیپ‌های لوبیا چشم بلبلی (Vigna unguiculata L.)

نوع مقاله : مقالات پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشگاه تبریز

2 دانشگاه تهران

چکیده

به منظور بررسی و گزینش ژنوتیپ‌های متحمل به تنش خشکی در لوبیا چشم‌بلبلی، آزمایشی در قالب طرح بلوک‌های کامل تصادفی با سه تکرار در دو شرایط نرمال (آبیاری هر 7 روز یکبار) و تنش آبی (آبیاری هر 14 روز یکبار) به‌صورت جداگانه در مزرعه گروه زراعت و اصلاح نباتات دانشگاه تهران واقع در کرج در سال زراعی 1392 اجرا گردید. تنش خشکی از 50 روز پس از کاشت یا به‌عبارتی از مرحله 6 برگچه‌ای بر روی 32 ژنوتیپ لوبیا چشم‌بلبلی اعمال شد. ارزیابی تحمل به تنش خشکی بر روی ژنوتیپ‌ها، توسط 8 شاخص مختلف شامل، شاخص تحمل تنش، میانگین حسابی، میانگین هندسی، شاخص حساسیت به تنش، شاخص پایداری عملکرد، شاخص عملکرد، شاخص تحمل تنش و شاخص میانگین هارمونیک صورت گرفت. برای تعیین روابط بین عملکرد دانه و شاخص‌های مورد بررسی، از ضرایب همبستگی استفاده گردید و شاخص‌های تحمل به تنش، میانگین حسابی، میانگین هندسی و میانگین هارمونیک که دارای همبستگی مثبت و معنی‌داری با عملکرد دانه در هر دو شرایط نرمال و تنش بودند، انتخاب شدند. با استفاده از روش ترسیمی بای‌پلات بر روی 32 ژنوتیپ لوبیای چشم‌بلبلی و بررسی وضعیت قرار گرفتن ژنوتیپ‌ها در بای‌پلات، ژنوتیپ‌های 291، 313، 998 و 7 به‌عنوان ژنوتیپ‌های متحمل به تنش خشکی با عملکرد بالا شناسایی شدند. تجزیه کلاستر برای ژنوتیپ‌ها براساس شاخص‌های مورد مطالعه و عملکرد در دو شرایط نرمال و تنش خشکی انجام گرفت و ژنوتیپ‌های مورد مطالعه در چهار کلاستر گروه‌بندی شدند. نتایج این تجزیه نشان داد که، اغلب ژنوتیپ‌های متحمل به تنش خشکی و دارای عملکرد بالا در کلاستر دوم و بیشتر ژنوتیپ‌های حساس به تنش خشکی در کلاستر چهارم قرار گرفتند.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Screening for drought stress tolerance in cowpea genotypes )Vigna unguiculata L (.

نویسندگان [English]

  • khosro mafakheri 1
  • Mohammad Reza Bihamta 2
  • Ali Reza Abbasi 2
1 University of Tabriz
2 University of Tehran
چکیده [English]

Introduction
Drought stress is one of the most important abiotic stresses all around the world. The aim of breeding studies and breeding for resistance to drought is that breeders seek to identify varieties and genetic resources to drought resistant and comparison of drought resistance among the varieties and the introduction of superior varieties to farmers. Drought or imbalance between supply and demand for water is one of the most important limiting factors affecting crop production which is very important in this context, effective and economic use of water resources especially for areas with arid and semi-arid climatic conditions which covers about two-thirds of the total area of Iran (Shahram & Daneshi, 2005). Breeders have been trying that by testing different varieties under normal and stress conditions to identify varieties and use them to plant breeding programs.
Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp), a member of the family leguminous (Fabaceae) is a crop grown under the tropical and sub-tropical areas covering Africa, Asia, South America, and parts of Southern Europe and United States (Singh et al., 1997). Dry seeds of cowpea contain 20-25% protein, 1.8% fat, and 60.3% carbohydrate and are rich sources of iron and calcium (Majnoon Hoseini, 2008).
In this study, various drought tolerance indices were used to identify drought resistant in varieties. Indices included drought tolerance, Tolerance Index (TOL), Mean Productivity (MP), Geometric Mean Productivity (GMP), Stress Susceptibility Index (SSI), Yield Stability Index (YSI), Yield Index (YI), Stress Tolerance Index(STI), and Harmonic Mean (HM) (Ahmadi et al., 2000; Fernandez, 1992; Safari et al., 2007; Bouslama & Schapaugh,1984; Gavuzzi et al.,1997).

Materials and Methods
In order to study and determine the most effective traits, drought tolerance indices and identify tolerant genotypes in vegetative drought stress on the cowpea genotypes, All 32 cowpea genotypes were cultivated in a randomized complete block design with three replications which each replication consisted of 32 experimental units, each unit or plot, three lines with a length of two meters with line spacing of 70 cm were planted. The distance between rows of plants, 10 cm and 50 cm was considered the distance between each plot, in two separate experiments including normal irrigation and water stress conditions. The study was conducted at Experimental Research Farm, University of Tehran, Karaj Agricultural Research Institute at College of Agriculture and Natural Resources in Karaj, Tehran, Iran during 2014. Drought stress was imposed by doubling the irrigation time about 50 days after planting against normal irrigation on thirty-two cowpea genotypes. Evaluation of drought resistant in different genotypes was conducted using eight indices including Tolerance Index (TOL), Mean Productivity (MP), Geometric Mean Productivity (GMP), Stress Susceptibility Index (SSI), Yield Stability Index (YSI), Yield Index (YI), Stress Tolerance Index (STI), and Harmonic Mean (HM).

Results and Discussion
Analysis of variance showed that there is a significant difference between genotypes for all the indices of drought tolerance and grain yield in both normal and stress conditions (P0.01). This result suggested that the genetic variation among genotypes is capable of selection for drought tolerance.
A simple calculation of statistical parameters (mean and standard deviation) for drought tolerance indices indicated that there is a great diversity among the study genotypes which it can be used as rich genetic resources to help breeders to improve and identify resistant varieties.
The average yield of all genotypes under drought stress and normal irrigation condition was Ys = 83.57, and Yp =101.82, respectively. Significant differences between two different conditions indicated that cowpea plant has a high potential for tolerance under drought stress condition. TOL index revealed the lowest average value among various indices (TOL =18.24).
The low level of stress tolerance index shows a high relative tolerance genotype. In fact, stress tolerance index showed the changes of stress condition in genotypes. It means that genotypes with low TOL index indicate less changes and genotypes with high TOL index show more changes.
Correlation coefficient was calculated to determine the relationship between grain yield and drought tolerance indices. The STI, MP, HM and GMP indices which have the most positive and significant correlation with grain yield under stress and non-stress conditions were introduced as the best indices for screening tolerant genotypes to drought and high-yielding in both environmental conditions. Using Biplot scatter graph in 32 cowpea genotypes and according to genotypes situation in Biplot display, genotypes 998, 313, 291 and 7 were identified as tolerant genotypes with high-yield. Cluster analysis based on investigated indices and yield under drought stress and non-stress conditions showed that genotypes were grouped in four clusters and most of the drought tolerant genotypes with high yield were grouped in the second cluster، while most of drought sensitive genotypes were grouped in the fourth cluster.

Conclusions
In this study, genotypes showed high genetic diversity in terms of drought tolerance using drought tolerance indices. Based on the results obtained in this study genotypes 291, 7, 313, and the Mashhad cultivar (998) can be proposed as drought tolerant genotypes.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Biplot
  • Cluster analysis
  • Correlation
  • Cowpea
  • grain yield
  • Tolerance indices
1. Ahmadi, J., Zeinaly Khanghah, H., Rostamy, M.A., and Chogan, R. 2000. Study of drought tolerance indices and biplot method in eight corn hybrids. Iranian. J. Agric Sci. 31: 513-523. (In Persian).
2. Ahmadzadeh, A. 1996. Evaluation of best index for drought tolerance in the choosing lines mayse (Zea mays. L). MSc. Thesis. College of Agriculture, University of Tehran. (In Persian).
3. Alavi, R., and Shoaie Deilami, M. 2004. Selection of different tobacco cultivars for resistance to drought in Rasht regions. Proceedings of the 8th Agronomy and Plant Breeding of Iran. College of Agricultural Sciences of Guilan, Rasht. p. 78. (In Persian).
4. Blum, A. 1988. Plant Breeding for Stress Environments. CRC Press. Boca Raton. FL. pp. 38-78.
5. Blum, A. 1996. Crop response to drought and the interpretation of adaptation. J. Plant. Growth Regul. 20: 135-148.
6. Bouslama, M., and Schapaugh. W. T. 1984. Stress tolerance in soybean, I Evaluation of three screening techniques for heat and drought tolerance. Crop Science 24: 933-937.
7. Debaeke, P., and Abdellah, A. 2004. Adaptation of crop management to water limited environments. Eur. J. Agron. 21: 433-446.
8. Ebrahimi, M., Bihamta, M.R., Hossein zadeh, A.H., Khiyalparast, F., and Golpashi, M. 2010. Evaluation of reaction yield and yield components of white bean genotypes under water stress. Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research 8: 347-358. (In Persian).
9. Entz, M.H., and Flower, B. 1990. Differential agronomic response of winter wheat cultvers to preanthesis environmental stress. Crop Science 30: 1119-1123.
10. Fathi, M., Bihamta, M.R., Mjnoon Hosseini, N., Shah Nejat Biushehry, A.A., and Mohammad AliPour Yamchi, H. 2012. Screening for terminal drought stress tolerance in cowpea genotypes (Vigna unguiculata L.). Iranian Journal of Pulses Research 3(2): 45-54. (In Persian with English Summary).
11. Farayedi, Y. 2004. Evalution of drought resistance in chickpea genotype Kabuli. Journal of Agriculture 6: 27-38. (In Persian).
12. Farshadfar, A., Zamani, M., Talebi Matlabi, M., and Emamjome, A. 2001. Selection for drought resistance chickpea lines. Iranian .J. Agric Sci. 32: 65-76.
13. Fathe Baheri, S., Javanshir, A., Kazemi, H., and Ahari Zad, S. 2003. Evaluation of drought tolerance indices in a spring barley cultivars. Journal of Agricultural Science 13(3): 95-105.
14. Fernandez, G.G.J. 1992. Effective selection criteria for assessing plant stress tolerance. In: C.G. Kuo. (Ed.). Adaptation of food crops to temperature and water stress. AVRDC, Shanhau, Taiwan. pp: 259-270.
15. Fischer, R.A., and Maurer, R. 1978. Drought resistance in spring wheat cultivars. Part 1: grain yield response. Aust. J. Agr. Res. 29: 897-912.
16. Gavuzzi, P., Rizza, F., Palumbo, M., Campaline, R.G., Ricciardi, G.L., and Borghi, B. 1997. Evaluation of field and laboratory predictors of drought and heat tolerance in winter cereals. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 77: 523-531.
17. Ganjeali, A., Joveynipour, S., Porsa, H., and Bagheri, A. 2011. Selection for drought tolerance in Kabuli chickpea genotypes in Neyshabour region. Iranian Journal of Pulses Research 2(1): 27-38. (In Persian with English Summary).
18. Ganjeali, A., Kafi, M., Bagheri, A.R., and Shahriar, F.A. 2005. Selection for drought resistance in chickpea genotypes (Cicer arietinum). Iranian .J. Agric Res. 3: 103-122.
19. Habibi, Gh.M., Ganadha, M.R., Sohani, A.R., and Dory, H.R. 2006. Evaluation of relation of seed yield with important agronomic traits of Red bean by different analysis methods in stress water condition. J. Agric Sci. Natur Resour 13: 1-13. (In Persian with English Summary).
20. Hossain, A.B.S., Sears, A.G., Cox, T.S., and Paulsen, G.M. 1990. Desiccation tolerance and its relationship to assimilate partitioning in winter wheat. Crop Sci. 30: 622-627.
21. Kristin, A.A., Serna, R.R., Perez, F.I., Enriquez, B.C., Gallegos, J.A.A., Vallejo, P.R., Wassimi, N., and Kelley, J.D. 1997. Improving common bean performance under drought stress. Crop Sci 37: 43-50.
22. Majnoon Hoseini, N. 2008. Grain legume production. Jihad-e-Daneshgahi of Tehran Publishers. 284pp. (In Persian).
23. McCaig, T.N., and Clarke, J.M. 1982. Seasonal changes in nonstructural carbohydrate levels of wheat and oats grown in semiarid environment. Crop Sci. 22: 963-970.
24. Moghaddam, A., and Hadizadeh, M.H. 2002. Response of corn (Zea mays L.) hybrids and their parental lines to drought using different stress tolerance indices. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 18(3): 255-272.
25. Naroui Rad, M.R., Ghasemi, A., and Arjmandinejad, A.R. 2010. Study of limited irrigation on yield of lentil genotypes of national Plant Gene Bank of Iran by drought resistance indices. American-Eurasian Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences 7(2): 238-241.
26. Naderi, A., Majidi Herwan, A., Hashemi Dezfoli, A., Rezaii, V., and Nor Mohammadi, Gh. 1999. Analysis performance screening indices in Plants under environmental stress and introduce one new index. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 15: 390-402. (In Persian).
27. Panthuwan, G., Fokai, S., Cooper, M., Rajatasereekul, S., and Toole, J.C. 2002. Yield response of rice genotypes to different types of drought under rain fed lowlands. Part 1, grain yield and yield components. Field Crop Res. 41: 45-54.
28. Safari, S., Dehghan, H., and Chogan, R. 2007. Evaluation of corn inbred lines for water resistance based on resistance indices and biplot method. Iranian J. Agric. Sci. 38(2): 215-228.
29. Samieezadeh, H.A. 1996. Evaluation of phenotypic and genotypic variation of quantitative traits and their correlation with the yield of Kabuli type chickpea. MSc. Thesis. Islamic Azad University of Karaj.
30. Schneider, K.A., Rosales-Serna, R., Ibarra-Perez, F., Cazares-Enriquez, B., Acosta-Gallegos, J.A., Ramirez-Vallejo, P., Wassimi, N., and Kelly, J.D. 2004. Improving common bean performance under drought stress. Crop Sci. 37: 43-50.
31. Shahram, A., and Daneshi, N. 2005. Appropriate level of irrigation water needed in agriculture white beans. 9th Congress of Soil Science. Iran.
32. Shirinzadeh, A., Zarghami, R., and Shiri, M.R. 2008. Evaluation of drought tolerance in late and medium maize hybrids -using stress tolerance indices. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences 10(40): 416-427. (In Persian with English Summary).
33. Singh, K.B., and Ocampo, B. 1997. Exploitation of wild cicer species for yield improvement in chickpea. Theor. Appl. Genet. 95: 418-23.