Assessment of Adaptability and Seed Yield Stability of Autumn Sown Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) Genotypes Using AMMI Analysis

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Seed and Plant Improvement Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization, Karaj, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor, Baluchistan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization, Iranshahr, Iran.

3 Researcher, South Kerman Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization, Jiroft, Iran.

4 Researcher, Khuzestan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization, Ahvaz, Iran.

5 Researcher, Seed and Plant Improvement Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization, Karaj, Iran.

Abstract

This research was carried out to meet the need for development and introduction of new crops that can adapt to long periods of drought stress under changing climate. For this purpose the adaptability and seed yield stability of 10 autumn sown quinoa genotypes including; Red Carina, Titicaca, Giza1, Q12, Q18, Q21, Q22, Q26, Q29 and Q31 were studied using randomized complete block design with three replications in four location (Ahvaz, Iranshahr, Bushehr and Jiroft) in Iran in 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 cropping seasons. Seed of quinoa genotypes were sown in October 2017 and 2018 in Ahvaz and Jiroft, and in November 2017 and 2018 in Iranshahr and Bushehr. Genotypes with Q prefix have been received from Chile, cv. Titicaca from Denmark, cv. Giza1 from Egypt and cv. Red Carina from the Netherlands. Days to germination, days to flowering, days to physiological maturity, plant height, inflorescence length, stem diameter, seed yield, 1000-seed weight and seed saponin content were measured and recorded. Combined analysis of variance showed that effects of year, location and genotypes were significant (P ≤0.01) on all studied traits, except days to germination. Also, genotype × location interaction was significant (P ≤0.01) on all studied traits. Genotype Q12 (2350.2 kg ha-1) and Red Carina (1695 kg ha-1) had the highest and lowest mean seed yield, respectively. Jiroft (3147.5 kg ha-1) and Bushehr (1009 kg ha-1) had the highest and lowest mean seed yield, respectively. The results of AMMI analysis showed that Q18, Q22, TTKK and Q21 genotypes had the highest seed yield stability, respectively. Genotypes Q18 and Q22 had specific adaptation to Ahvaz, Iranshahr and Bushehr, and genotypes Q12, Q29 and Q26 showed specific adaptation to Jiroft. In conclusion, the results of this research showed that all studied quinoa genotypes were suitable for autumn sowing in target areas.

Keywords

References

Abasi, S., Cordnaeich, A., and Bagheri, M. 2018. Evaluation of genetic diversity of new quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) cultivars based on agro-morphological traits. In: Proceedings of the 15th Iranian Crop Science Congress. 2-5 September 2019. Karaj, Iran.
 
 
Ashraf, E. 2017. Multi-environmental evaluation for grain yield and its components of quinoa genotypes across the northwestern coast of Egypt. Egyptian Journal of Desert Research 67: 65-82. DOI:10.21608/ejdr.2017.5845.
 
 
Bagheri, M. 2018. Handbook of quinoa cultivation. Seed and Plant Improvement Institute. 56 pp.
 
 
Bagheri, M., Anafjeh, Z., Taherian, M., Emami, A., Molaie, A. R., and Keshavarz, S. 2021. 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. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences 22 (4): 376-387 (in Persian).
 
 
Belmonte, C., Soaresde Vasconcelos, E., Tsutsumi, C., Lorenzetti, E., Hendges, C., Coppo, J., da Silva Martinez, A., Pan, R., Santos Brito, T., and Inagaki, A. 2018. Agronomic and productivity performance for quinoa genotypes in an agroecological and conventional production system. American Journal of Plant Sciences 9: 880-891. DOI: 10.4236/ajps.2018.94067.
 
 
FAO. 2017. FAOSTAT. Available at: http://faostat3.fao.org/browse/Q/QC/E.
 
 
Gauch, H. G., and Zobel, R. W. 1997. Identifying mega-environments and targeting genotypes. Crop Science 31: 311-326. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1997.0011183X003700020002x.
 
 
Hinojosa, L., Matanguihan, J. B., and Murphy, K. M. 2019. Effect of high temperature on pollen morphology, plant growth and seed yield in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 205: 33-45. https://doi.org/10.1111/jac.12302.
 
 
 Hossini, Y., Ramezani Moghaddam, J., Nikpour, M. R., and Abdoli, A. 2018. Evaluating water uptake functions under simultaneous salinity and water stress conditions in Solanum lycopersicum. Journal of Water Research in Agriculture 32 (2) 247-265 (in Persian). https://doi.org/10.22092/jwra.2018.116969
 
 
Hosseni, H., Rahemi Karizaki, A., Biabani, A., Nakhzari Moghadam, A., and Taleii, F. 2020. Investigating changes in the physiological indicators
of the growth and yield of the quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) under the influence of different cultivation dates. Crop Production 13 (2): 99-116. DOI: 10.22069/EJCP.2020.17953.2325
 
 
Hussain, M. I., Al-Dakheel, A. J., and Reigosa, M. J. 2018. Genotypic differences in agro-physiological, biochemical and isotopic responses to salinity stress in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) plants: Prospects for salinity tolerance and yield stability. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 129: 411-420. DOI: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2018.06.023.
 
 
Jacobsen, S., and Stolen, O. 1993. Quinoa - Morphology, phenology and prospects for its production as a new crop in Europe. European Journal of Agronomy 2 (1): 19-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1161-0301 (14)80148-2.
 
 
Kaoutar, F., Abdelaziz, H., Ouafae, B., Redouane, C. A., and Ragab, R. 2017. Yield and dry matter simulation using the saltmed model for five quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) accessions under deficit irrigation in South Morocco. Irrigation and Drainage 66 (3): 340-350. DOI: 10.1002/ird.2116.
 
 
Koziol, M. J. 1991. Afrosimetric estimation of threshold saponin concentration for bitterness in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd). Science of Food Agriculture 54: 211–219 https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2740540206.
 
 
Moosavi, S. S., Moradi Rizvandi, R. M., Abdollahi, R., and Bagheri, M. 2022. Evaluation of diversity and application of agronomic, morphological, and physiological traits to improve quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) grain yield. Journal of Crop Production and Processing 11 (4): 53-68. DOI: 10.47176/jcpp.11.4.26417.
 
 
Prager, A., Munz, S., Mehdi Nkebiwe, P., Mast, B., and Graeff-Hönninger, S. 2018. Yield and quality characteristics of different quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) cultivars grown under field conditions in southwestern Germany. Agronomy 8 (10): 197. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy8100197
 
 
Santis, G., Maddaluno, C., Ambrosio, T., Rascio, A., Rinaldi, M., and Troisi, J. 2016. Characterization of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) accessions for the saponin content in Mediterranean environment. Italian Journal of Agronomy 11 (774): 277-281 https://doi.org/10.4081/ija.2016.774.
 
 
Sharifi, P., Aminpanah, H., Erfani, R., Mohaddesi, A., Abbasian, A. 2017. Evaluation of genotype × environment interaction in rice based on AMMI model in Iran. Rice Science 24 (3): 173−180. DOI:10.1016/j.rsci.2017.02.001.
 
 
Tarinejad, A. R., Rashidi, V., and Aglmand, N. 2020. Stability of yield and yield components in bread wheat cultivars by using AMMI method. Agricultural Science and Sustainable Production 30 (2): 319-331 (in Perisan)
 
 
Tavoosi, M., and Sepahvand, N. A. 2012. Evaluation of different genotypes of quinoa for yield and other phonological characteristics in Khuzestan. pp. 1-6. In: Proceeding of the 12th Iranian Genetic Congress. 21-23 May, 2012. Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran. (in Persian).
 
 
van Eeuwijk, F. A., Bustos-Korts, D. V., and Malosetti, M. 2016. What should students in plant breeding know about the statistical aspects of
genotype × environment interactions? Crop Science 56 (5): 2119 -2140. DOI:10.2135/cropsci2015.06.0375.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Seed and Plant Journal
Volume 38, Issue 4
January 2022
Pages 453-472

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics