Stability of Grain Vitreousness in Durum Wheat (Triticum durum L. Desf.) Genotypes in the North-Western Region of Turkey
This study was carried out in order to determine the grain vitreousness percentage and stability performance of 44 durum wheat genotypes, which were tested in 3 different environments during 2 growing periods. Grain vitreousness percentage of the genotypes ranged between 69.2% and 90.0%. Svevo, Amanos 97, and Zenit varieties had the highest vitreousness kernel percentages and the lowest grain yields. The negative correlation coefficient between vitreous grain percentage and grain yield, according to correlation analysis, confirms this result. Mutant 47, Harran 95, Epidur, and Kızıltan 95 were the most stable genotypes with respect to all stability parameters studied for vitreousness. Therefore, they can be recommended for profitable grain yield and consistent quality durum wheat production in the north-western region of Turkey. Svevo, Amanos 97, Zenit, Gediz 75, Ankara 98, Mirzabey, and Fuatbey 2000 varieties could be used as progenitors in future breeding programmes due to their high grain vitreousness potentials.
Stability of Grain Vitreousness in Durum Wheat (Triticum durum L. Desf.) Genotypes in the North-Western Region of Turkey
This study was carried out in order to determine the grain vitreousness percentage and stability performance of 44 durum wheat genotypes, which were tested in 3 different environments during 2 growing periods. Grain vitreousness percentage of the genotypes ranged between 69.2% and 90.0%. Svevo, Amanos 97, and Zenit varieties had the highest vitreousness kernel percentages and the lowest grain yields. The negative correlation coefficient between vitreous grain percentage and grain yield, according to correlation analysis, confirms this result. Mutant 47, Harran 95, Epidur, and Kızıltan 95 were the most stable genotypes with respect to all stability parameters studied for vitreousness. Therefore, they can be recommended for profitable grain yield and consistent quality durum wheat production in the north-western region of Turkey. Svevo, Amanos 97, Zenit, Gediz 75, Ankara 98, Mirzabey, and Fuatbey 2000 varieties could be used as progenitors in future breeding programmes due to their high grain vitreousness potentials.
___
- Akçura, M., Y. Kaya and S. Taner. 2005. Genotype-environment interactions and phenotypic stability analysis for grain yield of durum wheat in the Central Anatolian Region. Turk. J. Agric. For., 29: 369-375.
- Backer, H.C. and J. Leon. 1988. Stability analysis in plant breeding. Plant Breed. 101: 1-23.
- Breese, E.L. 1969. The measurement and significance of genotype- environment interactions in grasses. Heredity 24: 27-44.
- Comstock, R.E. and R. Moll. 1963. Genotype ×Environment Interactions. In: Statistical Genetics and Plant Breeding (Eds. W.D. Hanson and H.F. Robinson). NASNRC Pub., Washington, DC, pp. 164-196.
- Eberhart, S.A. and W. Russell. 1966. Stability parameters for comparing varieties. Crop Sci., 6: 36-40.
- Finlay, S.A. and G.N. Wilkinson. 1963. The analysis of adaptation in a plant breeding program. Aust. J. Agric. Res., 14: 742-754.
- Grausgruber, H., M. Oberforster, M. Werteker, P. Ruckenbauer and J. Vollmann. 2000. Stability of quality traits in Austrian-grown winter wheats. Field Crops Res., 66:257-267.
- Hadjichristodoulou, A. 1979. Genetic and environmental effects on vitreousness of durum wheat. Euphytica 28: 711-716.
- Hadjichristodoulou, A. 1989. Breeding cereals for consistency of performance in dry lands through stability of traits. Euphytica 28: 711-716.
- IACC. 1980. Method for the Determination of the Vitreousness of Durum Wheat. International Association of Cereal Chemistry, ICC Standard No: 129.
- Kara, Ş.M. 2000. Bazı ekmeklik buğday genotiplerinde adaptasyon ve stabilite analizleri. Turk. J. Agric. For. 24: 413-419.
- Korkut, K.Z., İ. Başer. 1993. Ekmeklik buğdayda genotip x çevre interaksiyonu ve tane veriminin stabilitesi üzerine araştırmalar. Tekirdağ Zir. Fak. Der. 2: 63-68.
- Kruger, J.E., R.B. Matsuo and J.W. Dick. 1996. Pasta and Noodle Technology. American Association of Cereal Chemists, Inc., Minnesota, USA.
- Mart, D. and E. Anlarsal. 2001. Çukurova koşullarında nohutta (Cicer arietinum L.) bazı önemli özellikler yönünden genotip x çevre interaksiyonları ve uyum yeteneklerinin saptanması üzerine bir araştırma. Türkiye 4. Tarla Bitkileri Kongresi, 17-21 Eylül, Tekirdağ, s. 321-326.
- Obuchowski, W. 1997. Technologia Przemyslowej Produkcji Makaronu. AR, Poznan, Poland.
- Pekin, F. and Ü. Çakmaklı. 1987. Bazı Türk ıslah çeşidi makarnalık buğdayların kimi teknolojik ve renk özellikleri üzerinde bir araştırma. Türkiye Tahıl Simpozyumu, 6-9 Ekim Bursa, 527-534.
- Peterson, C.J., P.S. Graybosch, P.S. Baenziger and A.W. Grombacher. 1992. Genotype and environment effects on quality characteristics of hard red winter wheat. Crop Sci., 32: 98-103.
- Sağlam, N. 1992. Trakya Koşullarında Beş Makarnalık Buğday Çeşidinde Farklı Azotlu Gübre Dozları ve Verilme Zamanlarının Verim ve Kalite Üzerine Etkileri. T.Ü. Tekirdağ Ziraat Fakültesi (Doktora Tezi), Tekirdağ.
- Shukla, G.K. 1972. Some statistical aspects of partitioning genotype x environment components of variability. Heredity, 29: 237-245.
- Wricke, G. 1962. Über eine methode zur erfassung der ökologischen streubreite in feldversuchen. Z. Pflanzenzüchtung, 47: 92-96.
- Yahia, R., E. Sliman, M.N. Vanessa and G.D.M. Luis. 2001. Protein and lysine, grain yield, and other technological traits in durum wheat under Mediterranean conditions. J. Agr. Food. Chem. 49: 3802- 3807.
- Yılmaz, G. and M.E. Tugay. 1999. Patateste çeşit x çevre etkileşimleri I. Stabilite parametreleri yönünden irdeleme. Turk. J. Agric. For. 23: 97-105.
- Yates, F. and W.G. Cochran. 1938. The analysis of groups of experiments. J. Agric. Sci., 28: 556-580.
- Zencirci, N. and A. Karagöz. 2005. Effect of developmental stages length on yield and some quality traits of Turkish durum wheat (Triticum turgidum L. convar. durum (Desf.) Mackey landraces: Influence of developmental stages length on yield and quality of durum wheat. Genet. Resour. Crop. Ev., 52: 765-774.