Redirecting to http://dergipark.org.tr/_fragment?_hash=Z3-EO-11Sl8VaxEWOgbVojyGYgvMCFiBPaDp9te1L9g&_path=id%3D720081%26_format%3Dhtml%26_locale%3Dtr%26_controller%3DApp%255CController%255CSite%255CArticleController%253A%253AesiArticleStats.
Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Effects of Seedling Stage Drought on Seed Yield, Oil Rate and Oil Yield in Safflower (Charthamus tinctorius L) Genotypes

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 23 Sayı: 6, 1626 - 1633, 31.12.2020

Hasan Koç

https://doi.org/10.18016/ksutarimdoga.vi.720081
Cited By: 2

Öz

Objective of this study was to evaluate the responses of safflower genotypes in terms of seed yield, oil content and oil yield against seedling stage (rosette stage) drought occurring in natural conditions in Konya province where spring drought is frequently observed with the help of drought Sensitivity Index (DSI). The study was conducted in 2018 and 2019 with four replications as a randomized blocks, with 6 registered varieties and 17 genotypes obtained by selection. In 2018, the total amount of precipitation in the safflower seedling stage (May) was well above the average for many years, while this value was 10 mm in May 2019, and it was well below the average for many years. Seedling drought conditions occurring in these natural conditions provided an opportunity to evaluate the reactions of safflower genotypes to stressful and stress-free conditions. According to the results of the analysis of variance based on the values of the stress-free (2018) and stressful (2019) values in the study, it was found to be significant compared to 1% for genotype, stress and genotype stress interaction, seed yield, oil content and oil yield characteristics. In terms of seed yield, when the drought sensitivity index values of the genotypes included in the experiment were examined, G1 was determined as the most susceptible to drought (1.50), followed by G6 (1.33) and G8 (1.19). When the drought sensitivity index values of the standard varieties were examined, Dinçer (1.19) variety was determined to be the most sensitive variety. The drought sensitivity index was lowest, therefore drought most tolerant genotypes were G13 (0.48), G14 (0.53) and G15 (0.65). Among the registered varieties, Balcı (0.92) has been identified as the most drought tolerant variety. It has been determined that the effect of seedling stage drought stress occurs differently in each genotype. Although the oil content was significantly affected by drought, this effect was decreasing in some genotypes while it increased in some others. The effect of safflower genotypes on oil yields from seedling drought was similar to seed yield.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Safflower Drought Sensitivity Index (DSI) Seed Yield Oil Content Oil Yield

Kaynakça

  • Aguado JAC, Rodes R, Perez PI, Dorado M 2000. Morphological and Charasterictics and Yield Compounents Associated with Accumulation And Loss of Dry Mass in the Internodes of Wheat. Field Crops Research 66:129-139.
  • Amini H, Arzani A, Bahrami F 2013. Seed Yield and Some Physiological Traits of Safflower as Affected By Water Deficit Stress. Int J of Plant Prod 7:597–614.
  • Acevedo E, Ceccarelli S 1989. Role of the physiologist-breeder in a breeding program for drought resistance conditions (No. CIS-1195. CIMMYT.).
  • Bagheri H, Sharghi Y 2011 The Survey of Agronomical Traits of Safflower Cultivars in Condition of Water Deficit (Carthamus tinctorius L.), Advances in Environmental Biology 5(13): 3836-3839.
  • Bahrami F, Arzani A, Karimi V 2014. Evaluation of Yield-Based Drought Tolerance Indices For Screening Safflower Genotypes. Agronomy Journal 106(4): 1219-1224.
  • Baloch MJ, Khan NU, J WA, Hassan G, Khakgwani AA, Soomro ZA, Veesar NF 2011. Drought Tolerance Studies Through Wssi and Stomata in Upland Cotton. Pak.J.Bot 43(5):2479-2484.
  • Bannayan M, Nadjafi F, Azizi M, Tabrizi L, Rastgoo M 2008.Yield and Seed Quality of Plantago Ovata and Nigella Sativa under Different Irrigation Treatments. Ind Crops Prod 27: 11–16.
  • Blum A 2012. Drought Resistance. In. Plant Breeding for Water-Limited Environments. Springer, New York.
  • Deharo A, Del Rio M, Lopez JC, Garcia M. A, Palomares M. J. and Fernandes Martines J 1997. Evaluation of the World Collection of Safflower for Oil Quality and Other Seed Characters. Sesame and Safflower News 6: 94-99.
  • Esendal A, Istanbulluoglu B, Arslan B, Paşa C 2007. Effect of Water Stress on Growth Components of Winter Safflower (Carthamus tinctorius). Paper presented at the 7th International Safflower Conference, Wagga
  • Farahani SM, Chaichi MR, Mazaheri D, Afshari R. T 2011. Barley Grain Mineral Analysis as Affected by Different Fertilizing Systems and by Drought Stress. J. Agr. Sci. Tech 13: 315–326
  • Farooq M, Wahid A, Kobayashi N, Fujita D, Basra SMA 2009. Plant Drought Stress: Effects, Mechanisms and Management. Agron Sustain Dev 29:185–212.
  • Fischer RA, Maurer R 1978. Drought Resistance in Spring Wheat Cultivars. I.Grain Yield Responses, Aust. J. Agric. Res 29: 897-912.
  • Hamzehzarghani H, Kazemeini S. A 2011. An analysis of the exponential family models to predict yield loss of safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) challenged with water stress and redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.). J. Agr. Sci. Tech 13: 989-1000.
  • Hojati M, Modarres-Sanavy S, Karimi M, Ghanati F 2011. Responses of Growth And Antioxidant Systems in Carthamus tinctorius L. under Water Deficit Stress. Acta Physiol Plant 33(1):105–112.
  • İstanbulluoğlu A, Gocmen E, Gezer E, Pasa C, Konukcu F 2009. Effects of Water Stress at Different Development Stages on Yield and Water Productivity of Winter and Summer Safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.). Agricultural Water Management 96(10):1429-1434.
  • Koç H 2019. Relationships between Survival in Winter Colds and Some Morphological and Technological Characteristics in Safflower Genotypes. Genetika 51(2) : 525-537.
  • Koutroubas SD, Papakosta DK, Doitsinis A 2009. Phenotypic Variation in Physiological Determinants of Yield in Spring Sown Safflower under Mediterranean Conditions. Field Crop Res 112(2–3):199–204.
  • Lobell DB, Burke MB, Tebaldi C, Mastrandrea MD, Falcon WP, Naylor RL 2008. Prioritizing Climate Change Adaptation Needs for Food Security in 2030. Science 319(5863):607–610.
  • Lovelli S, Perniola M Ferrara A, Di Tommaso T 2007. Yield Response Factor to Water (Ky) and Water Use Efficiency of Carthamus tinctorius L. and Solanum melongena L, Agricultural Water Management 92 (1) : 73-80.
  • Ludlow MM, Muchow RC 1990. A Critical Evaluation of Traits For Improving Crop Yields In Water-Limited Environments. Advances in Agronomy 43:107-153.
  • Mansour E, Abdul-Hamid MI, Yasin MT, Qabil, N, Attia A 2017. Identifying Drought-Tolerant Genotypes of Barley and Their Responses to Various Irrigation Levels in a Mediterranean Environment. Agric Water Manag 194: 58-67.
  • Mozaffari K, Asadi AA 2006. Relationships among Traits Using Correlation,Principal Components and Path Analysis in Safflower Mutants Sown in İrrigated and Drought Stress Condition. Asian J Plant Sci 5(6):977-983.
  • Nacar AS, Değirmenci V, Hatipoğlu H, Taş M, Arslan H, Çıkman A, Şakak A 2016. Harran Ovası Koşullarında Yazlık Aspir Bitkisinde Sulamanın Verim ve Yağ Kalitesi Üzerine Etkileri. Tarla Bitkileri Merkez Araştırma Enstitüsü Dergisi 25(Özel sayı-2):149-154.
  • Nargeseh HE, Aghaalikhani M, Rad AS, Mokhtassi-Bidgoli A, Sanavy S M 2020. Comparison of 17 Rapeseed Cultivars under Terminal Water Deficit Conditions Using Drought Tolerance Indices. J. Agr. Sci. Tech 22(2): 489-503.
  • Nikzad M, Behrouj M, Shahdadi M 2013. Evaluation of the Behavior of Spring Safflower Genotypes Against Drought. Switzerland Res Park J 102(3):165–169.
  • Oad FC, Samo MA, Oayyum SM, Oad 2002. NL. Inter and Intra Row Spacing effect on The growth, Seed Yield and Oil Content of Safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) Asian J Plant Sci 1(1): 18-19.
  • Ongom PO, Volenec, JJ, Ejeta G 2016. Selection for Drought Tolerance in Sorghum Using Desiccants to Simulate Post-Anthesis Drought Stress. Field Crops Res 198: 213-321.
  • Öztürk Ö, Ada R, Akınerdem F 2009. Bazı Aspir Çeşitlerinin Sulu ve Kuru Koşullarda Verim ve Verim Unsurlarının Belirlenmesi. Selçuk Tarım ve Gıda Bilimleri Dergisi, 23 (50): 16-27.
  • Rashidi F, Majidi MM, Pirboveiry M 2017. Response of Different Species of Brassica to Water Deficit. Int. J. Plant Prod 11(1): 1-16.
  • Roudbari Z, Saba J, Shekari F 2012. Use of Physiological Parameters as Tools to Screen Drought Tolerant Safflower Genotypes, International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences 3(12): 2374-2380.
  • Shakhatreh Y, Kafawin O, Ceccarelli, S, Saoub H 2001. Selection of Barley Lines for Drought Tolerance in Low Rainfall Areas. J. Agron. Crop Sci 186: 119–127.
  • Singh C, Kumar V, Prasad I, Patil VR, Rajkumar BK 2015. Response of Upland Cotton (G. hirsutum L.) Genotipypes to Drought Stress Using Drought Tolerance Indices. J. Crop Sci. Biotech 19 (1): 53- 59.
  • Singh RJ 2006. Safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.), Genetic Resources, Chromosome Engineering, and Crop İmprovement, vol 4. New York.
  • Uslu N, Tutluer İ, Taner KY, Kunter B, Sağel Z, Peşkircioğlu H, Kantoğlu, K. Y 2002. Effects of Temperature and Moisture Stress During Elongation and Branching on Development and Yield of Safflower. Sesame and Safflower Newsletter No. 17.
  • Zareie S, Mohammadi-Nejad G, Sardouie-Nasab S 2013. Screening of Iranian Safflower Genotypes Under Water Deficit and normal conditions Using Tolerance İndices. Aust J Crop Sci 7:1032–1037.

Aspir (Charthamus tinctorius L) Genotiplerinde Fide Devresi Kuraklığının Tohum Verimi, Yağ Oranı ve Yağ Verimine Etkileri

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 23 Sayı: 6, 1626 - 1633, 31.12.2020

Hasan Koç

https://doi.org/10.18016/ksutarimdoga.vi.720081
Cited By: 2

Öz

Bu çalışmada, ilkbahar kuraklığının sıklıkla görüldüğü Konya ilinde, doğal şartlarda oluşan fide devresi (rozet devresi) kuraklığına karşı aspir genotiplerinin tohum verimi, yağ oranı ve yağ verimi bakımından tepkilerinin Kuraklık Hassasiyet indeksi (KHİ) yardımıyla değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Araştırma, 6 tescilli çeşit ve seleksiyonla elde edilen 17 genotip ile 2018 ve 2019 yıllarında tesadüf blokları deneme desenine göre dört tekerrürlü olarak kurulmuştur. 2018 yılında aspirin fide devresinde (Mayıs) toplam yağış miktarı uzun yıllar ortalamasının oldukça üzerinde 72 mm olarak gerçekleşirken, 2019 yılı Mayıs ayında bu değer 10 mm olmuş ve uzun yıllar ortalaması çok altında gerçekleşmiştir. Bu doğal şartlarda gerçekleşen fide devresi kuraklık koşulları, aspir genotiplerinin stresli ve stressiz koşullara tepkilerini değerlendirme fırsatı tanımıştır. Araştırmada Stressiz (2018 yılı) ve stresli (2019 yılı) şartlara ait değerler üzerinden yapılan varyans analiz sonuçlarına göre, genotip, stres arasındaki ve genotip stres interaksiyonu, tohum verimi, yağ oranı ve yağ verimi özellikleri için %1 seviyesinde önemli bulunmuştur. Tohum verimi bakımından, denemede yer alan genotiplerin kuraklık hassasiyet indeksi değerleri incelendiğinde G1 kuraklığa en hassas genotip olarak belirlenmiş (1.50) bunu G6 (1.33) ve G8 (1.19) takip etmiştir. Standart çeşitlerin kuraklık hassasiyet indeksi değerleri incelendiğinde, Dinçer (1.19) çeşidinin en hassas çeşit olduğu belirlenmiştir. Kuraklık hassasiyet indeksi en düşük dolayısıyla kuraklığa en toleranslı genotipler ise G13 (0.48), G14 (0.53) ve G15 (0.65) olmuştur. Tescilli çeşitler içerisinde Balcı (0.92) kuraklığa en toleranslı çeşit olarak tespit edilmiştir. Fide devresi kuraklık stresinden etkilenmenin her genotipte farklı şekilde gerçekleştiği tespit edilmiştir. Yağ oranı kuraklıktan önemli ölçüde etkilenmekle birlikte, bu etkilenme bazı genotiplerde azalış yönünde olurken, bazı genotiplerde artış yönünde olmuştur. Aspir genotiplerinin fide devresi kuraklığına tepkisi ise, yağ verimi bakımından tohum verimine benzer şekilde olmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Aspir Kuraklık Hassasiyet indeksi (KHİ) Tohum Verimi Yağ oranı Yağ verimi

Kaynakça

  • Aguado JAC, Rodes R, Perez PI, Dorado M 2000. Morphological and Charasterictics and Yield Compounents Associated with Accumulation And Loss of Dry Mass in the Internodes of Wheat. Field Crops Research 66:129-139.
  • Amini H, Arzani A, Bahrami F 2013. Seed Yield and Some Physiological Traits of Safflower as Affected By Water Deficit Stress. Int J of Plant Prod 7:597–614.
  • Acevedo E, Ceccarelli S 1989. Role of the physiologist-breeder in a breeding program for drought resistance conditions (No. CIS-1195. CIMMYT.).
  • Bagheri H, Sharghi Y 2011 The Survey of Agronomical Traits of Safflower Cultivars in Condition of Water Deficit (Carthamus tinctorius L.), Advances in Environmental Biology 5(13): 3836-3839.
  • Bahrami F, Arzani A, Karimi V 2014. Evaluation of Yield-Based Drought Tolerance Indices For Screening Safflower Genotypes. Agronomy Journal 106(4): 1219-1224.
  • Baloch MJ, Khan NU, J WA, Hassan G, Khakgwani AA, Soomro ZA, Veesar NF 2011. Drought Tolerance Studies Through Wssi and Stomata in Upland Cotton. Pak.J.Bot 43(5):2479-2484.
  • Bannayan M, Nadjafi F, Azizi M, Tabrizi L, Rastgoo M 2008.Yield and Seed Quality of Plantago Ovata and Nigella Sativa under Different Irrigation Treatments. Ind Crops Prod 27: 11–16.
  • Blum A 2012. Drought Resistance. In. Plant Breeding for Water-Limited Environments. Springer, New York.
  • Deharo A, Del Rio M, Lopez JC, Garcia M. A, Palomares M. J. and Fernandes Martines J 1997. Evaluation of the World Collection of Safflower for Oil Quality and Other Seed Characters. Sesame and Safflower News 6: 94-99.
  • Esendal A, Istanbulluoglu B, Arslan B, Paşa C 2007. Effect of Water Stress on Growth Components of Winter Safflower (Carthamus tinctorius). Paper presented at the 7th International Safflower Conference, Wagga
  • Farahani SM, Chaichi MR, Mazaheri D, Afshari R. T 2011. Barley Grain Mineral Analysis as Affected by Different Fertilizing Systems and by Drought Stress. J. Agr. Sci. Tech 13: 315–326
  • Farooq M, Wahid A, Kobayashi N, Fujita D, Basra SMA 2009. Plant Drought Stress: Effects, Mechanisms and Management. Agron Sustain Dev 29:185–212.
  • Fischer RA, Maurer R 1978. Drought Resistance in Spring Wheat Cultivars. I.Grain Yield Responses, Aust. J. Agric. Res 29: 897-912.
  • Hamzehzarghani H, Kazemeini S. A 2011. An analysis of the exponential family models to predict yield loss of safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) challenged with water stress and redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.). J. Agr. Sci. Tech 13: 989-1000.
  • Hojati M, Modarres-Sanavy S, Karimi M, Ghanati F 2011. Responses of Growth And Antioxidant Systems in Carthamus tinctorius L. under Water Deficit Stress. Acta Physiol Plant 33(1):105–112.
  • İstanbulluoğlu A, Gocmen E, Gezer E, Pasa C, Konukcu F 2009. Effects of Water Stress at Different Development Stages on Yield and Water Productivity of Winter and Summer Safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.). Agricultural Water Management 96(10):1429-1434.
  • Koç H 2019. Relationships between Survival in Winter Colds and Some Morphological and Technological Characteristics in Safflower Genotypes. Genetika 51(2) : 525-537.
  • Koutroubas SD, Papakosta DK, Doitsinis A 2009. Phenotypic Variation in Physiological Determinants of Yield in Spring Sown Safflower under Mediterranean Conditions. Field Crop Res 112(2–3):199–204.
  • Lobell DB, Burke MB, Tebaldi C, Mastrandrea MD, Falcon WP, Naylor RL 2008. Prioritizing Climate Change Adaptation Needs for Food Security in 2030. Science 319(5863):607–610.
  • Lovelli S, Perniola M Ferrara A, Di Tommaso T 2007. Yield Response Factor to Water (Ky) and Water Use Efficiency of Carthamus tinctorius L. and Solanum melongena L, Agricultural Water Management 92 (1) : 73-80.
  • Ludlow MM, Muchow RC 1990. A Critical Evaluation of Traits For Improving Crop Yields In Water-Limited Environments. Advances in Agronomy 43:107-153.
  • Mansour E, Abdul-Hamid MI, Yasin MT, Qabil, N, Attia A 2017. Identifying Drought-Tolerant Genotypes of Barley and Their Responses to Various Irrigation Levels in a Mediterranean Environment. Agric Water Manag 194: 58-67.
  • Mozaffari K, Asadi AA 2006. Relationships among Traits Using Correlation,Principal Components and Path Analysis in Safflower Mutants Sown in İrrigated and Drought Stress Condition. Asian J Plant Sci 5(6):977-983.
  • Nacar AS, Değirmenci V, Hatipoğlu H, Taş M, Arslan H, Çıkman A, Şakak A 2016. Harran Ovası Koşullarında Yazlık Aspir Bitkisinde Sulamanın Verim ve Yağ Kalitesi Üzerine Etkileri. Tarla Bitkileri Merkez Araştırma Enstitüsü Dergisi 25(Özel sayı-2):149-154.
  • Nargeseh HE, Aghaalikhani M, Rad AS, Mokhtassi-Bidgoli A, Sanavy S M 2020. Comparison of 17 Rapeseed Cultivars under Terminal Water Deficit Conditions Using Drought Tolerance Indices. J. Agr. Sci. Tech 22(2): 489-503.
  • Nikzad M, Behrouj M, Shahdadi M 2013. Evaluation of the Behavior of Spring Safflower Genotypes Against Drought. Switzerland Res Park J 102(3):165–169.
  • Oad FC, Samo MA, Oayyum SM, Oad 2002. NL. Inter and Intra Row Spacing effect on The growth, Seed Yield and Oil Content of Safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) Asian J Plant Sci 1(1): 18-19.
  • Ongom PO, Volenec, JJ, Ejeta G 2016. Selection for Drought Tolerance in Sorghum Using Desiccants to Simulate Post-Anthesis Drought Stress. Field Crops Res 198: 213-321.
  • Öztürk Ö, Ada R, Akınerdem F 2009. Bazı Aspir Çeşitlerinin Sulu ve Kuru Koşullarda Verim ve Verim Unsurlarının Belirlenmesi. Selçuk Tarım ve Gıda Bilimleri Dergisi, 23 (50): 16-27.
  • Rashidi F, Majidi MM, Pirboveiry M 2017. Response of Different Species of Brassica to Water Deficit. Int. J. Plant Prod 11(1): 1-16.
  • Roudbari Z, Saba J, Shekari F 2012. Use of Physiological Parameters as Tools to Screen Drought Tolerant Safflower Genotypes, International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences 3(12): 2374-2380.
  • Shakhatreh Y, Kafawin O, Ceccarelli, S, Saoub H 2001. Selection of Barley Lines for Drought Tolerance in Low Rainfall Areas. J. Agron. Crop Sci 186: 119–127.
  • Singh C, Kumar V, Prasad I, Patil VR, Rajkumar BK 2015. Response of Upland Cotton (G. hirsutum L.) Genotipypes to Drought Stress Using Drought Tolerance Indices. J. Crop Sci. Biotech 19 (1): 53- 59.
  • Singh RJ 2006. Safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.), Genetic Resources, Chromosome Engineering, and Crop İmprovement, vol 4. New York.
  • Uslu N, Tutluer İ, Taner KY, Kunter B, Sağel Z, Peşkircioğlu H, Kantoğlu, K. Y 2002. Effects of Temperature and Moisture Stress During Elongation and Branching on Development and Yield of Safflower. Sesame and Safflower Newsletter No. 17.
  • Zareie S, Mohammadi-Nejad G, Sardouie-Nasab S 2013. Screening of Iranian Safflower Genotypes Under Water Deficit and normal conditions Using Tolerance İndices. Aust J Crop Sci 7:1032–1037.
Toplam 36 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Konular Ziraat, Veterinerlik ve Gıda Bilimleri
Bölüm ARAŞTIRMA MAKALESİ (Research Article)
Yazarlar

Hasan Koç 0000-0003-1728-070X

Yayımlanma Tarihi 31 Aralık 2020
Gönderilme Tarihi 14 Nisan 2020
Kabul Tarihi 4 Haziran 2020
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2020 Cilt: 23 Sayı: 6

Kaynak Göster

APA Koç, H. (2020). Aspir (Charthamus tinctorius L) Genotiplerinde Fide Devresi Kuraklığının Tohum Verimi, Yağ Oranı ve Yağ Verimine Etkileri. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Tarım ve Doğa Dergisi, 23(6), 1626-1633. https://doi.org/10.18016/ksutarimdoga.vi.720081

Cited By

INTEGRATING DIFFERENT STABILITY MODELS TO INVESTIGATE HIGH YIELDING SAFFLOWER (Charthamus tinctorius L.) GENOTYPES
Turkish Journal Of Field Crops
https://doi.org/10.17557/tjfc.797419
The effects of seasonal climate change on the safflower genotypes productivity under Central Anatolian conditions
Journal of the American Oil Chemists' Society
https://doi.org/10.1002/aocs.12886
 Kapak Resmi İndir

21082



2022-JIF = 0.500

2022-JCI = 0.170

Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi (International Peer Reviewed Journal)

       Dergimiz, herhangi bir başvuru veya yayımlama ücreti almamaktadır. (Free submission and publication)

      Yılda 6 sayı yayınlanır. (Published 6 times a year)


88x31.png 

Bu web sitesi Creative Commons Atıf 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile lisanslanmıştır.

                 


Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Tarım ve Doğa Dergisi
e-ISSN: 2619-9149