پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 161 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 6,532 |
| تعداد مقالات | 70,501 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 124,115,153 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 97,219,124 |
ارزیابی شاخصهای تحمل به شوری آب آبیاری در ارقام و لاین‌های جدید گلرنگ | ||
| تحقیقات آب و خاک ایران | ||
| مقاله 16، دوره 51، شماره 7، مهر 1399، صفحه 1811-1821 اصل مقاله (649.3 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/ijswr.2020.299239.668552 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| حسن حقیقت نیا* 1؛ ابوالقاسم الحانی2 | ||
| 1. استادیار بخش تحقیقات خاک و آب، مرکـز تحقیقات و آموزش کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی استان فارس،سـازمان تحقیقـات، آمـوزش و ترویـج کشـاورزی،داراب، | ||
| 2عضو هیئت علمی بخش تحقیقات اصلاح نهال و بذر، مرکز تحقیقات و آموزش کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی فارس، سازمان تحقیقات آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، | ||
| چکیده | ||
| بهمنظور ارزیابی شاخصهای تحمل به شوری و انتخاب ژنوتیپ ایدهآل در چند رقم و لاین جدید گلرنگ، آزمایشی بهصورت فاکتوریل و در قالب طرح کاملاً تصادفی با سه تکرار در ایستگاه تحقیقات کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی داراب به اجرا درآمد. فاکتور اول با دو سطح شوری آب آبیاری بهترتیب شامل 98/0 (شاهد) و 8/7 دسی زیمنس بر متر و فاکتور دوم با هشت ژنوتیپ گلرنگ شامل ارقام گلدشت، پرنیان، گلمهر، محلیاصفهان، پدیده و سه لاین امیدبخش Mec14، Mec235 و Mec248 بود. برای ارزیابی تحمل به شوری ژنوتیپها از شاخصهایی شامل حساسیت به تنش (SSI)، میانگین هارمونیک (HM)، شاخص تحمل (TOL)، شاخص تحمل به تنش (STI)، میانگین هندسی بهره‌وری (GMP)، شاخص بهره‌وری متوسط (MP)، شاخص عملکرد (YI)، شاخص پایداری عملکرد (YSI) و در نهایت از تکنیک شاخص انتخاب ژنوتیپ ایدهآل (SIIG) استفاده گردید. بر اساس نتایج، شاخصهای MP، GMP، HM، YI و STI بیشترین همبستگی را با عملکرد دانه در شرایط شاهد و شوری داشتند، بنابراین مناسبترین شاخصها جهت تعیین میزان تحمل به شوری شناخته شدند. بر اساس این شاخصها لاین Mec248 بهعنوان برترین ژنوتیپ در این آزمایش معرفی گردید. از سوی دیگر بر اساس شاخص انتخاب ژنوتیپ ایدهآل (SIIG) ژنوتیپ پرنیان با بیشترین مقدار (683/0) بهعنوان متحملترین ژنوتیپ به تنش شوری معرفی شد. بنابراین در نهایت این ژنوتیپ برای کاشت در مناطق جنوبی مشابه که مشکل شوری دارند توصیه میگردد. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| انتخاب ایدهآل؛ تنش شوری؛ ژنوتیپ؛ عملکرد؛ گلرنگ | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Evaluation of Irrigation Water Salinity Tolerance Indices in New Cultivars and Lines of Safflower | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| HASAN HAGHIGHATNIA1؛ ABOLGHASEM ALHANI2 | ||
| 1Assistant Professor of Soil and Water Research Department, , Fars Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, AREEO, Darab, , Iran | ||
| 2Faculty Educator of Seed and Plant Improvement Research Department, Fars Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, AREEO, Darab, Fars, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| In order to evaluate the salinity tolerance indices and to select the ideal genotype among several new cultivars and lines of safflower, a factorial experiment was conducted in a completely randomized design with three replicates in Darab Agricultural and Natural Resources Research Station. The first factor, with two salinity levels of irrigation water consisted of 0.98 (as control) and 7.8 dS.m-1, and the second factor with eight safflower genotypes included Goldasht, Parnian, Golmehr, Isfahan, Padideh and three promising lines Mec14., Mec235 and Mec248. For evaluation of salinity tolerance of cultivars and lines, some indices including stress sensitivity (SSI), harmonic mean (HM), tolerance index (TOL), stress tolerance index (STI), geometric mean productivity (GMP), index average productivity (MP), yield index (YI), yield stability index (YSI) and finally the ideal genotype selection index (SIIG) technique were used. Based on the results, MP, GMP, HM, YI and STI indices had the highest correlation with grain yield under control and salinity conditions, thus they were recognized as the most suitable indices for determining salinity tolerance. According to these indices, Mec248 line was introduced as the best genotypes in this experiment. On the other hand, based on ideal genotype selection index (SIIG), Parnian genotype with the highest value (0.683) was introduced as the most tolerant genotype to salinity stress. Therefore, this genotype is recommended for planting in similar southern areas that have salinity problems. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Ideal selection, Genotype, Safflower, Salinity stress, Yield | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Ali, S., Tavakoli, M., Poustini, K., Pourbabaei A. A., and Alizadeh, H. (2017). Evaluation the salt tolerance of alfalfa ecotypes according to tolerance indicator. Iranian Journal of Field Crop Science 47(2), 479-489. (In Persian) Bassil, E. S., and Kaffka, S. R. (2002). Response of safflower to saline soils and irrigation: II. Crop response to salinity. Agricultural Water Management, 54, 81-92. Bouslama, M., and Schapaugh, W. T. (1984). Stress tolerance in soybean. Part 1: evaluation of three screening techniques for heat and drought tolerance. Crop Science 24, 933-937. Eskandary Torbaghan, M., Astaraei, A., Eskandary Torbaghan, M., Ganjali, A. (2009). Evaluation of salinity stress tolerance indices derived from Cl/SO4 anionic ratios and nitrogen fertilizer in barley (Hordeum vulgare L. var. Nosrat). Environmental Stresses in Agricultural Sciences 2(1), 15-27. Farshadfar, E., Sabaghpour, S.H., and Zali, H. (2012). Comparison of parametric and non‐parametric stability statistics for selecting stable chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes under diverse environments. Australian Journal of Crop Science. 6, 514‐524. Feizi, M., Hajabbasi, M.A. and Mostafazadeh-Fard, B. (2010). Saline irrigation water management strategies for better yield of safflower in an arid region. Australian J. Crop Sci. 4(6), 408-414. Fernandez, G. C. (1992). Effective selection criteria for assessing plant stress tolerance. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Adaptation of Vegetables and other Food Crop to Temperature and Water Stress. Taiwan. pp. 257-270. Fischer, R.A., and Maurer, R. (1978). Drought resistance in spring wheat cultivars. I. Grain yield responses. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 29, 897-912. 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. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nation (2017). [online]. Available at http:// WWW. Fao.org/faostat/en/# data/qc. Jaafari Rad, S., Zavareh, M., Khaledian, M. R., Rezaei, M. (2015). Evaluation of tolerance of different rice genotypes to water irrigation salinity. Journal of Crop Plants Production. 17(3),1-11. (In Persian) Kamali, A., Shah Mohammadi Heidari, Z., Heidari, M., Feizi, M. (2011). Effect of salinity of irrigation and leaching water on soil chemical properties and safflower yield in Isfahan region. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences. 42 (1), 63-70. (In Persian) Kingsbury, R. W., Epstein, E., and Pearcy R. W. (1984). Physiological responses to salinity in selected lines of wheat. Plant Physiology 74(2), 417. Moameni, A. (2010). Geographical distribution and salinity levels of soil resources of Iran. Soil Res. J. 24,203-215. [In Persian with English Abstract]. Munns, R., James, R. A., Lauchli, A. (2006). Approaches to increasing the salt tolerance of wheat and other cereals. Journal of Experimental Botany 57(5), 1025-1043. Najafi Mirak, T., Dastfal, M., Andarzian, B., Farzadi, H., Bahari, M., Zali, H., (2018). Stability analysis of grain yield of durum wheat promising lines in warm and dry areas using parametric and non-parametric methods. Journal of Crop Production and Processing. 8(2), 79-96. [In Persian with English Abstract]. Parida, A. K., and Das, A. B. (2004). Salt tolerance and salinity effects on plants: a review. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 60 (3), 324-349. Pervaiz, Z., Afzal, M., Xiao, Y., and Ancheng, L. (2003). Mechanism of salt tolerance in selected wheat cultivars. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology 5, 141-144. Rosiel, A. A., and Hamblin, J. (1981). Theoretical aspects of selections for yield in stress and non-stress environments. Crop Sci. 21, 943-946. Singh S., Grover K., Begna S., Angadi S., Shukla M., Steiner R. and Auld D. (2014). Physiological response of diverse origin spring safflower genotypes to salinity. Journal of Arid Land Studies, 24(1), 169-174. Sio-Se Mardeh, A., Ahmadi, A., Poustini, K., Mohammadi, V. (2006). Evaluation of drought resistance indices under various environmental conditions. Field Crops Research. 98, 222–229. Tahmasebi, S., Dastfal, M., Zali, H., Rajaei, M. (2018). Drought tolerance evaluation of bread heat cultivars and promising lines in warm and dry climate of the south. Cereal Research 8(2), 209-225. (In Persian). Yagoutipour, A., Farshadfar, E., Saeedi, M., (2017). Assessment of durum wheat genotypes for drought tolerance by suitable compound method. Environmental Stress in Crop Sciences. 10(2), 247-256. (In Persian) Zainali, A. (1999). Safflower (cognition, production and consumption). (Compilation). Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources Publications, 144 pp. Zali, H., Sofalian, O., Hasanloo, T., Asgharii, A., and Hoseini, S. M. (2015). Appraising of drought tolerance elying on stability analysis indices in canola genotypes simultaneously, using selection index of ideal genotype (SIIG) technique: Introduction of new method. Biological Forum-An International Journal 7: 703-711. Zali, H., Sofalian, O., Hasanloo, T., Asgharii, A., and Zeinalabedini, M. (2016). Drought stress effect on physiological parameter and amino acids accumulations in canola. Journal of Crop Breeding 8:191-203 [In Persian with Abstract English].
| ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 417 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 316 |
||