[Home ] [Archive]   [ فارسی ]  
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
Main Menu
Home::
Journal Information::
Articles archive::
For Authors::
For Reviewers::
Registration::
Contact us::
Site Facilities::
::
Search in website

Advanced Search
..
Receive site information
Enter your Email in the following box to receive the site news and information.
..
:: Volume 22, Issue 4 (2-2021) ::
علوم زراعی 2021, 22(4): 376-387 Back to browse issues page
Assessment of adaptability and seed yield stability of selected quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) genotypes in spring cropping systems in cold and temperate regions of Iran
Mahmoud Bagheri , Zeynab Anafjeh , Majid Taherian , Aliyeh Emami , Alireza Molaie , Sasan Keshavarz6
Assistant Prof., Seed and Plant Improvement Research Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization, Karaj, Iran
Abstract:   (1798 Views)
cultivation areas
To study the adaptability and seed yield stability, in this experiment, ten quinoa genotypes including; Red Carina, Titicaca, Giza1, Q12, Q18, Q21, Q22, Q26, Q29, Q29 and Q31 were evaluated using randomized complete block design with three replications in 2017 and 2018 in four locations; Karaj, Shahr-e-Kord, Kashmar and Urmia for their adaptability and grain yield stability. The results showed that quinoa genotypes had significant differences for most of the studied traits. However, genotype × location × year interaction effects on plant height, inflorescence length and days to flowering was not significant. Q26 genotype had the highest grain yield (2007 kg.ha-1) in Shahr-e-Kord. The lowest yield (338.33 kg.ha-1) was related to Q21 genotype in Karaj. The results of AMMI stability analysis showed that Q29 genotype had the highedt grain yiled stability with the shortest distance from the center of the graph. Cv. Giza1, cv. Red Carina, Q31 and Q26 genotypes also ranked next in terms of grain yield stability. Also, Q12, Red Carina and Q22 genotypes had specific adaptation in Karaj and Kashmar, and Giza1 and Q18 genotypes showed high specific adaptation in Urmia. In general, the results of this experiment showed that all quinoa genotypes were compatible with spring cultivation in experimental sites.

 [Z1]This shows 3 years?? You had 2 years testing data and result?!1
Was corrected
Keywords: Adaptability, AMMI Analysis, Compatibility, Principle components and Quinoa.
Full-Text [PDF 731 kb]   (1018 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Scientific & Research | Subject: Special
Received: 2020/06/3 | Accepted: 2020/11/29 | Published: 2021/02/28
References
1. Abasi, S., A. Cordnaeich and M. Bagheri. 2018. Evaluation of genetic diversity of new chenopodium quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd (cultivars based on agromorphological traits. 15th National Iranian Congress Science Congress, 2-5 Sep. 2019. Karaj, Iran. (In Persian with English abstract).
2. Bagheri, M. 2019. Evaluation of quantitative and qualitative characteristics in new genotypes of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Final Research Project Report, Agricultural Research and Information Center, Registration No. 55778. (In Persian with English abstract).
3. Bagheri, M., M.R. Zamani, H. Shouride, A.R. Molaei, A.R. Mansourian and F. Heydari. 2018. Evaluation of compatibility of quinoa genotypes in Mashhad and Isfahan. Final Research Project Report, Agricultural Research and Information Center, Registration No. 53795. (In Persian with English abstract).
4. Bhargava, A. and S. Srivastava. 2013. Quinoa Botany, Production and Uses. CABI. [DOI:10.1079/9781780642260.0000]
5. Bois, J.F., T. Winkel, J.P., Lhomme, J.P. Raffaillac and A. Rocheteau. 2006. Response of some Andean cultivars of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) to temperature: effects on germination, phenology, growth and freezing. Europ. J. Agron. 25: 299-308. [DOI:10.1016/j.eja.2006.06.007]
6. Brancourt Hulmel, M., B. Denis and C. Lecomte. 2000. Determining environmental covariates which explain genotype environment interaction in winter wheat through probe genotypes and biadditive factorial regression. Theor. Appl. Genet. 100: 285-298. [DOI:10.1007/s001220050038]
7. Fuentes, F., J. Maughan and E. Jellen. 2009. Diversidad genética y recursos genéticos para el mejoramiento de la quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Revista Geográfica de Valparaiso N° 42/2009. ISSN 0716 - 1905.
8. Gauch, H.G. and R.W. Zobel. 1997. Identifying mega-envitonments and targeting genotypes. Crop Sci. 31: 311-326. [DOI:10.2135/cropsci1997.0011183X003700020002x]
9. Jacobsen, S.E., A. Mujicab and C.R. Jensenc. 2003. The resistance of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Wild.) to adverse abiotic factors. Food Rev. Int. 19(1-2): 99-109 [DOI:10.1081/FRI-120018872]
10. Koziol, M.J. 1991. Afrosimetric estimation of threshold saponin concentration for bitterness in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd). J. Sci. Food Agric. 54: 211-219. [DOI:10.1002/jsfa.2740540206]
11. Miri, Kh. 2017. Evaluation of compatibility of quinoa genotypes to Iranshahr region. Final Report of the Research Project. Baluchestan Agriculture and Natural Resources Research and Training Center, Iranshahr, Iran. Agricultural Research and Extension Research Organization. (In Persian with English abstract).
12. Molaei, A. 2016. Evaluation of adaptation and response of some quinoa cultivars to day length in Shahrekord. Final Report of the Research Project. Chaharmahal & Bakhtiari Province Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Training Center. Agricultural Research and Extension Research Organization. (In Persian with English abstract).
13. Rojas-Beltran, J., A. Bonifacio, G. Botani and J. Maugham. 2010. Obtención de nuevas variedades de quinua frente a los efectos del cambio climático. Informe Compendio 2007-2010. Fundación PROINPA. Cochabamba, Bolivia.
14. Saeidi, S.M., S. A. Siadat, A. Moshatati, M.R. Moradi-Telavat and N.A. Sepahvand. 2020. Effect of sowing time and nitrogen fertilizer rates on growth, seed yield and nitrogen use efficiency of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) in Ahvaz, Iran. Iran. J. Crop Sci. 21(4): 354-367. (In Persian with English abstract). [DOI:10.29252/abj.21.4.354]
15. Sepahvand, N.A., M. Tavazoa and M. Kohbazi. 2010. Quinoa valuable plant for alimentary security and adaptation agricultural in Iran. 11th National Iranian Crop Science Congress. 24-26 Jul. 2010. Tehran, Iran. (In Persian with English abstract).
16. Tan, M. and S. Temel. 2018. Performance of some quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) genotype grown in different climate conditions. Turk. J. Field Crops. 23 (2):180-186. [DOI:10.17557/tjfc.485617]
17. Tavoosi, M. and N.A. Sepahvand. 2012. Evaluation of different genotypes of quinoa for yield and other phenological characteristics in khuzestan. 12th Iranian Genetic Congress. 21-23 May, 2012. Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran. (In Persian with English abstract).
18. Yan, W., M.S. Kang, B. Ma, S. Woods and P.L. Cornelius. 2007. GGE biplot vs. AMMI analysis of genotype-by- environment data. Crop Sci. J. 47: 643-655. [DOI:10.2135/cropsci2006.06.0374]
Send email to the article author

Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:

CAPTCHA



XML   Persian Abstract   Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Bagheri M, Anafjeh Z, Taherian M, Emami A, Molaie A, Keshavarz6 S. Assessment of adaptability and seed yield stability of selected quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) genotypes in spring cropping systems in cold and temperate regions of Iran. علوم زراعی 2021; 22 (4) :376-387
URL: http://agrobreedjournal.ir/article-1-1110-en.html


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Volume 22, Issue 4 (2-2021) Back to browse issues page
نشریه علوم زراعی ایران Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.05 seconds with 37 queries by YEKTAWEB 4645