Subscribe Now Subscribe Today
Abstract
Fulltext PDF
References
Research Article
 

Response of Hull-less Barley Genotypes for High Yield Potential and Stability as Affected by Different Water Stress Conditions



M.A. Abdel-Moneam, M.S. Sultan, A.A. Eid and Sally E. El-Wakeel
 
ABSTRACT

The experiment was conducted to evaluate ten hull-less barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) genotypes (line-1 to line-7, Giza 129, Giza 130 and Giza 131) for high yield potential and stable performance under two irrigation treatments (normal and stress). Plant height, spike length, spikes No. m-2, grains number/spike, 1000-grain weight, biological yield/plot and grain yield/plot were evaluated during two successive seasons 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 at Sakha Agricultural Research Station (ARC), Egypt. Results revealed that negative significant effects observed for water stress in both growing seasons. Line-3, line-4 and Giza 130 which had the highest biological yield and grain yield especially under stress condiotion. Drought Susceptibility Index (DSI) over both conditions indicated that line-2, line-7, Giza 130 and Giza 131 were tolerant for most traits, indicating the importance of these parents in this regard. The correlation analysis showed that highly significant positive correlations between yield components and grain yield under the two conditions were detected.

Services
Related Articles in ASCI
Similar Articles in this Journal
Search in Google Scholar
View Citation
Report Citation

 
  How to cite this article:

M.A. Abdel-Moneam, M.S. Sultan, A.A. Eid and Sally E. El-Wakeel, 2014. Response of Hull-less Barley Genotypes for High Yield Potential and Stability as Affected by Different Water Stress Conditions. Asian Journal of Crop Science, 6: 202-213.

DOI: 10.3923/ajcs.2014.202.213

URL: https://scialert.net/abstract/?doi=ajcs.2014.202.213
 
Received: September 30, 2013; Accepted: January 29, 2014; Published: April 14, 2014

INTRODUCTION

Drought is a major abiotic stress that severely affects barley production worldwide.Therefore, research into crop management practices that enhance drought tolerance and plant growth when water supply is limited has become increasingly essential. Barley germplasm is a treasure trove of useful genes and provide rich sources of genetic variation for crop improvement.

The ability of a cultivar to produce high and satisfactory yield over a wide range of stress and non-stress environments is very important. Blum (1979) suggested that one method of breeding for increasing performance under water stressed conditions might be to breed for superior yield under optimum conditions on the assumption that the best lines would also perform well under sub optimum conditions. They defined drought tolerance as the ability to minimize yield loss in the absence of soil water availability. The ideal situation would be to have a highly stable genotype with high yield potential (Finlay and Wilkinson, 1963; Smith, 1982). Therefore the experiments were undertaken to screen out the hull-less barley genotypes with high yield potential and stability under water stress conditions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ten hull-less barley genotypes (7 lines and three local varieties i.e., (Giza 129, 130 and131)) were chosen for the study based on their reputed differences in yield performance under normal and stress conditions (Table 1).

Table 1: Name and pedigree of 10 barley genotypes

Table 2: Maximum, minimum temperature and rainfall during the growing seasons of barley at sakha agricultural research station (ARC), Egypt

Experiments were conducted at the experimental farm of Sakha Agricultural Research Station, (ARC), Egypt, during the two successive seasons 2010/2011 and 2011/2012.

In the second season, the maximum temperature was high and rainfalls were low compared with the first season (Table 2).

Giza 131 was the most drought tolerant variety. So, this variety used as check comparing with the other genotypes. Seeds of barley were hand drilled at the recommended sowing rate in Egypt (50 kg fed.). Each genotype was sown in six rows of 3.5 m, with 20 cm between rows. Two separated experiments were laid out in Randomized Complete Blocks Design (RCBD) with three replications. The first experiment was irrigated three times after planting irrigation (normal condition). While, the second experiment was given planting irrigation only (drought stress condition). Sowing was done in 15th of December in both experiments. The preceding crop was cotton in both the seasons.

Plant height (cm), spike length (cm), spikes number m-2, grains number spike-1, 1000-grain weight (g), biological yield plot-1 (g) and grain yield plot-1 (g) were studied.

Drought Susceptibility Index (SDI) were calculated according to Fischer and Maurer (1978) as follows:

DSI = (1-Yd/Yw)/D

where, Yd = mean yield under drought, Yw = mean yield under normal condition and D = environmental stress intensity = 1-(mean yield of all genotypes under drought/mean yield of all genotypes under irrigated conditions). Lower stress susceptibility index than unity (DSI<1) is synonymous to high stress tolerance, while high stress susceptibility index (DSI>1) mean higher stress sensitivity.

Estimates of the simple phenotypic correlation (r) coefficients among all traits for the entries means were calculated according to Kearsey and Pooni (1996).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

In both seasons, a tallest plant was achieved when plants were grown under the well-watered treatment compared with those plants grown under the stress treatments (Table 3). Giza 131 was the tallest genotype followed by Giza 130 and line-2 in both treatments and both seasons and combined. While, line-5 was the shortest in both treatments and both seasons. Line-3 was least affected as a result of water stress, while line-5 was the most affected genotype. The reduction percentage ranged from 6.93, 0.00 and 3.62% in line-3 to 15.84, 16.84 and 16.33% in line-5 in first, second seasons and combined, respectively. These results are agreed with those of Samarah et al.(2009) and Vaezi et al. (2010).

As shown in Table (4), irrigated treatment had higher spike length than the stressed treatment. spike length (9.77, 8.91 and 9.34 cm in the first, second growing seasons and combined, respectively) was exhibited the highest value under irrigated treatment and corresponding the lowest values obtained from the stressed treatment (7.68, 6.57 and 7.13 cm) in the first, second growing seasons and combined, respectively.

Table 3: Effect of irrigation treatments on different barley genotypes and interaction between barley genotypes and irrigation treatments for plant height

Table 4: Effect of irrigation treatments on different barley genotypes and interaction between barley genotypes and irrigation treatments for spike length

The reduction percentage was 21.39, 26.26 and 23.72% in the first, second growing seasons and combined, respectively. These results are in agreement with those obtained by Farhat (2005) and Samarah et al.(2009).

For means of the ten barley genotypes, results showed highly significant differences existed between barley genotypes. Giza 131 gave the highest values for spike length under both seasons compared to the other genotypes, followed by Giza 130, line-7 and line-2 in the first season, while, Giza 130, line-7 and line-2 in the second season and Giza 129, Giza 130 and line-2 in combined.

Highly significant interaction between barley genotypes and irrigation treatments was found, where Giza 131 gave the highest values for spike length compared to the other genotypes under both treatments which gave the smallest reduction percentage, while line-6 gave the highest reduction percentage in first season and line-1 gave the highest reduction percentage in second season and combined. These results are in harmony with those of Refay (2010), Zare et al. (2011) and Amini et al. (2012).

Regarding to the influence of irrigation treatments on this trait, the data clearly show that spikes number m-2 was highly significant affected by irrigation treatments at both growing seasons. The irrigated treatment recorded the highest number of spike m-2 (426.67, 327.33 and 377.00 spikes in m2 in the first, second growing seasons and combined, respectively (Table 5). The severe drought stress treatment decreased spike number compared with the well-watered treatment in both growing seasons.

Table 5: Effect of irrigation treatments on different barley genotypes and interaction between barley genotypes and irrigation treatments for No. of spikes m-2

Such response may be attributing to lack of water absorbed and reduction in photosynthetic efficiency under insufficient water condition. Moreover, the reduction in assimilates translocated to new developing tillers might owe much the death of the new tillers and depressed the number of spikes primordial. These results are confirmed by Samarah et al.(2009) and Vaezi et al. (2010).

There were significant differences in spikes No. m-2 among genotypes in both growing seasons and combined. Line-3 and line-5 gave the highest values for spikes number compared to Giza 131 in both seasons and combined, while line-2 gave the highest values in the second growing season. Line-4 was the lowest genotypes in spikes No. m-2 in both growing seasons and combined.

There were a significant interaction between irrigation treatments and genotypes for spike number in the first growing season and combined. The reduction percentage ranged from 6.52% in Giza 130 to 25.37% in Giza 129 in the first season, from 1.03% in line-5 to 29.63% in line-1 in the second season and from 8.21% in line-5 to 24.53% in Giza 129 in combined data. These results are in agreement with those obtained by Mamnouie et al. (2006). But the interaction between barley genotypes and irrigation treatments was insignificant in the second growing season, where many other researchers found similar result such as, Refay (2010), Mollah and Paul (2011), Zare et al. (2011) and Amini et al. (2012).

Concerning response of grains number/spike to irrigation treatments, the results presented in Table 6, indicated that grains number per spike was significantly affected by irrigation treatments. This trend hold true in both growing seasons and combined data. It could be noticed that, the exposure of plants to water shortage at any developmental growth stages decreased significantly number of grains per spike.

Table 6: Effect of irrigation treatments on different barley genotypes and interaction between barley genotypes and irrigation treatments for grains number/spike

Water stress at various stages, especially before anthesis, can reduce the number of head spikes and number of grains per spike.

The reduction percentage was 7.81, 16.34 and 11.86% in the first, second growing seasons and combined, respectively. According to Ceccarelli (1987), water deficit during the early stage of plant development induces a reduction in spikelets primordia, while water deficit late in the plant development increases death of the flower and the entire spikelet. The number of grains per spike fertility depends on water availability during the early vegetative phase and during shooting stage. If water deficit occurs after the flowering stage, it induces a decrease of grain weight and thus its yield. The results are supported with obtained by Farhat (2005), Samarah et al.(2009) and Vaezi et al. (2010).

The differences among genotypes were highly significant in both growing seasons, indicating that overall differences between two irrigation treatments. Giza131, line-1 and line-2 produced highest number of grains per spike, in both growing seasons and combined, while, line-5 gave the lowest value compared to Giza 131 in both growing seasons and combined data.

Regarding the interaction effect between genotypes and irrigation treatments, highly significant interactions were observed in both seasons. These results indicated that, the behavior of genotypes affected by changing environments. The reduction percentage ranged from 3.39% in Giza 130-16.97% in line-6 in the first season, from 7.27% in line-1 to 31.82% in Giza 129 in the second season and from 6.01% in line-1 to 24.01% in Giza 129 in combined data. These results are in agreement with those obtained by Samarah et al.(2009), Refay (2010) and Zare et al. (2011).

Table 7: Effect of irrigation treatments on different barley genotypes and interaction between barley genotypes and irrigation treatments for 1000-grain weight

Results in Table 7 show that, 1000-grain weight was significantly affected by irrigation treatments. Generally, it could be noticed that, this reduction might be attributed to that water deficits during the vegetative, flowering and grain filling stages which reduce available assimilate for grain filling and re-translocation of stored assimilates to grains which in turn cause a reduction in grain size. Drought stress is known to reduce 1000-grain weight by shortening the grain-filling period. These results are in agreement with those obtained by Samarah et al.(2009) and Vaezi et al. (2010).

Line-5 was the heaviest genotype in 1000-grain weight followed by line-4, line-6 and line-1 in both seasons and combined data. While, line-7 was the lowest in 1000-grain weight in both seasons and combined. The reduction percentage ranged from 3.15-17.35% in first season, 4.26-15.80% in line-5 and line-7 in combined data, respectively and ranged from 4.72% in Giza 130 to 19.37% in Giza 129 in second season.

Results show highly significant differences among irrigation treatments in both seasons, where the irrigated treatment out yielded the stressed treatment (Table 8). The reduction percentages were 10.32, 18.7 and 14.26% at the first season, the second and combined data, respectively. These results are confirmed by Bayoumi (2004) and Refay (2010). Biological yield differences were related to low plant height and tiller numbers; grain yield differences were caused by a reduction in spikes plant-1 and grains spike-1. Genotypes Giza131 and line-3 produced the highest values, while line-2 and line-7 were the lowest genotypes in both seasons and their combined data for biological yield plot-1.

Table 8: Effect of irrigation treatments on different barley genotypes and interaction between barley genotypes and irrigation treatments for biological yield

Regarding the interaction effect between genotypes and irrigation treatments, significant and highly significant interactions were observed in both seasons and their combined data. These results indicated that, the behavior of genotypes affected by changing environments. The reduction percentage ranged from 0.63% in line-6 to 22.29% in line-1 in the first season, from 12.0% in line-2 to 26.85% in line-4 in the second season and from 7.38 in Giza 129 to 23.33% in line-1 in combined data for biological yield plot-1 (Table 8).

As drought stress severity increased, grain yield decreased for all genotypes in both seasons (Table 9). The percentage of reduction in grain yield plot-1 by the severe drought stress treatment were 1.32, 10.46 and 5.60% in the first, the second season and combined analysis, respectively. Average yields in irrigated treatment varied from 1785-2023 kg and in the stressed treatment, they varied from 1598.33-1996.67 kg in the second and first seasons, respectively. Under both water stress and irrigated conditions, line-3 revealed the highest grain yield for two years and combined. On the other hand, line-7 was the lowest, These results agreed with Santos et al. (2008), Samarah et al.(2009), Refay (2010) and Vaezi et al. (2010).

The grain yield under stress environments is dependent up on stress susceptibility yield potential. The susceptibility of a plant genotype to stress in the product of many physiological and morphological traits for which effective selection criteria have not yet been developed (Fischer and Maurer, 1978). Therefore, grain yield and attributes remain as major selection criteria for improved adaptation to stress environments in many breeding programs.

Table 9: Effect of irrigation treatments on different barley genotypes and interaction between barley genotypes and irrigation treatments for grain yield

As a result of water stress condition, the average of grain yield for these genotypes decreased. Several authors reported that, drought stress reduced photosynthesis and translocation rates and increased respiration which reduced available assimilates for grain filling and finally decreased grain yield (El-Naggar, 2010; Zare et al., 2011).

Highly significant interactions were observed in both seasons and combined and between genotypes and irrigation treatments. These results indicated that, the behavior of genotypes affected by changing environments. The reduction percentage ranged from 2.4% in Giza 131 to 15.79% in line-1 in the first season, from 1.03% in Giza 129-25.23% in line-5 in the second season and from 2.12% in Giza 131 to 16.67% in line-5 in combined analysis.

A drought Susceptibility Index (SI) which provides a measure of stress resistance based on minimization of yield loss under stress as compared to optimum conditions, rather than on yield level under stress, has been used to characterize the relative drought tolerance of wheat genotypes (Fischer and Maurer, 1978). This index was used to estimate the relative stress loss because it accounted for variation in yield potential and stress intensity. Lower stress susceptibility index than unity (SI<1) is synonymous to high stress tolerance, while high stress Susceptibility Index (SI>1) mean higher stress sensitivity.

Data in Table 10 indicated that, line-1, line-3 and line-6 for plant height, line-2, line-7 and Giza 131 for spike length, line-2, line-3, line-5 and Giza 130 for spikes No. m-2, all genotypes except line-5, line-6 and Giza 129 for grains number/spike, line-1, line-4, line-5 and Giza 130 for 1000-grain weight, line-2, line-6, Giza 129, Giza 130 and Giza 131 for biological yield and all genotypes except line-1, line-4 and line-5 for grain yield possessed DSI less than one, revealing that these parents were more resistance to water stress for these traits.

Table 10: Susceptibility index for the ten hull-less barley genotypes based on all studied traits

Table 11: Simple correlation coefficients among the studied traits of hulless barley genotype under normal and water stress conditions
*,**Significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels of probability, respectively

These results agreed with those obtained by Farhat (2005), Amer (2010) and Amer et al. (2011).

Correlation coefficient is important in plant breeding where it measures the degree of association between two or more characters. The correlation coefficients among the studied characters of hull-less barley genotypes under the two conditions are shown in Table 11.

Highly significant positive correlation coefficient were found between plant height and each of spike length under both conditions, grains No. spike-1 under normal, spikes No. m-2, 1000-grain weight, biological yield and grain yield under stress condition.

Highly significant positive correlations were found between spike length and each of spikes No. m-2 and biological yield under the two conditions, grains No. spike-1 under normal, 1000-grain weight and grain yield under water stress. Also significant or highly significant positive correlation was detected between spikes No. m-2 and each of grains No. spike-1, 1000-grain weight, biological yield and grain yield under the two conditions. Highly significant positive correlations were found between grains No. spike-1 and each of biological yield and grain yield under water stress. Highly significant positive correlations were found between 1000-grain weight and each of biological yield and grain yield under the two conditions. Highly significant positive correlations were found among biological yield and grain yield under the two conditions. These results are in agreement with those obtained by Singh et al. (1998), Singh (1999), Yadav et al. (2003) and Vaezi et al. (2010).

CONCLUSION

It can be concluded that water stress had negative significant effects in both growing seasons. Line-3, line-4 and Giza 130 had the highest biological yield and grain yield especially under stress condiotion. line-2, line-7, Giza 130 and Giza 131 were tolerant for water stress condition for most traits, indicating the importance of these parents in this regard. Highly significant positive correlations were detected between yield components and grain yield under the both conditions.

REFERENCES
Amer, K.A., 2010. Inheritance of drought tolerance in some barley genotypes. Egypt. J. Agric. Res., 88: 85-102.

Amer, K.A., A.A. Eid and M.M.A. El-Sayed, 2011. Genetic analysis of yield and its components under normal and drought conditions in some barley crosses. Egypt. J. Plant Breed, 2: 65-79.

Amini, A.R., A. Soleymani and M.H. Shahrajabian, 2012. Changes in morphological traits, leaf and soil RWC and length of growth and development stages of four cultivars of barley in restricted irrigation. Int. J. Agric. Crop Sci., 4: 368-371.
Direct Link  |  

Bayoumi, T.Y., 2004. Diallel cross analysis for bread wheat under stress and normal irrigation treatments. Zagazig J. Agric. Res., 31: 435-455.

Blum, A., 1979. Genetic Improvement of Drought Resistance in Crop Plants: A Case for Sorghum. In: Stress Physiology in Crop Plants, Hussell, H. and R.C. Staples (Ed.). Wiley, New York, pp: 495-545.

Ceccarelli, S., 1987. Yield potential and drought tolerance of segregation localities of barley in contrasting environments. Euphytica, 36: 265-273.

El-Naggar, A.A.E.A., 2010. Genetical studies on drought tolerance of barley. M.Sc. Thesis, Future of Agricultures Tanta University, Egypt.

Farhat, W.Z.E., 2005. Genetical studies on drought tolerance in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). M.Sc. Thesis, Tanta University, Egypt.

Finlay, K.W. and G.N. Wilkinson, 1963. The analysis of adaptation in plant breeding program. Aust. J. Agric. Res., 17: 747-754.
Direct Link  |  

Fischer, R.A. and R. Maurer, 1978. Drought resistance in spring wheat cultivars. I. Grain yield responses. Aust. J. Agric. Res., 29: 897-912.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

Kearsey, M.J. and H.S. Pooni, 1996. The Genetical Analysis of Quantitative Traits. Chapman and Hall, Birmingham, UK., ISBN: 9780412809804, Pages: 381.

Mamnouie, E., R.F. Ghazvini, M. Esfahani and B. Nakhoda, 2006. The effects of water deficit on crop yield and the physiological characteristics of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) varieties. J. Agric. Sci. Technol., 8: 211-219.
Direct Link  |  

Mollah, M.S.I. and N.K. Paul, 2011. Responses of irrigation and fertilizers on the growth and yield of Hordeum vulgare L. Bangladesh J. Sci. Ind. Res., 46: 369-374.
CrossRef  |  

Refay, Y.A., 2010. Relative influence of water irrigation improving productivity of some barley genotypes under low rainfall conditions of Saudi Arabia. Am.-Eurasian J. Agric. Environ. Sci., 7: 320-326.
Direct Link  |  

Samarah, N.H., A.M. Alqudah, J.A. Amayreh and G.M. McAndrews, 2009. The Effect of late-terminal drought stress on yield components of four barley cultivars. J. Agronomy Crop Sci., 195: 427-441.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

Santos, A.B.A., A.E. Klar and C.J. Jadoski, 2008. Physiological parameters in barley cultivars under water stress. IRRIGA, 13: 438-448.

Singh, A.K., S.B. Singh and H.S. Yadava, 1998. Correlation and path analysis in early generation of hull-less barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Ann. Agric. Res., 19: 260-264.

Singh, N.B., 1999. Correlation study in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). J. Applied Biol., 9: 143-145.

Smith, E.L., 1982. Heat and drought tolerant wheats of the future. Proceedings of the National Wheat Research Conference, October 26-28, 1982, Washington, DC., USA., pp: 141-147.

Vaezi, B., V. Bavei and B. Shiran, 2010. Screening of barley genotypes for drought tolerance by agro-physiological traits in field condition. Afr. J. Agric. Res., 5: 881-892.
Direct Link  |  

Yadav, V.K., R. Kumar and L. Ram, 2003. Correlation perusal for malting quality and other quantitative traits in two rowed and six rowed barley. Ann. Agric. Bio. Res., 8: 223-226.

Zare, M., M.H. Azizi and F. Bazrafshan, 2011. Effect of drought stress on some agronomic traits in ten barley (Hordeum vulgar) cultivars. Tech. J. Eng. Applied Sci., 1: 57-62.
Direct Link  |  

©  2019 Science Alert. All Rights Reserved
Fulltext PDF References Abstract