Skip to main content
Log in

Genotype–Environment Interaction, Productivity, and Adaptive Potential of Spring Wheat Varieties

  • CROP PRODUCTION
  • Published:
Russian Agricultural Sciences Aims and scope

Abstract

The assessment of productivity and the parameters of adaptability of vetted promising midseason and mid-late varieties of spring wheat under the conditions of the Northern Trans-Ural region was carried out. The varieties were tested in 2014–2016 using fallow as a background in three climatic zones: subtaiga (II zone), northern forest-steppe (III zone), and southern forest-steppe (IV zone). The highest interaction of genotype-environment was noted when calculating the correlation dependence between the productivity of varieties in various years of the test under the conditions of the southern forest-steppe zone (from r = –0.07 ± 0.28 to r = 0.41 ± 0.25). The highest maximum and average productivity according to the assessment of spring wheat varieties in nine environments (3 years × three state crop testing site) was the Aviada variety approved for use (5.86 and 3.78 t/ha, respectively) in the midseason group and promising variety Kvintus (6.98 and 4.58 t/ha) in the mid-late group. Significant productivity variability was noted. In the group of midseason varieties, its value ranged from 23.0 (Ikar) to 29.9% (Aviada), while that in mid-late varieties was from 25.6 (Riks) to 31.6% (Kvintus). The stress resistance of varieties was low regardless of the maturity group. In the group of midseason varieties, the Ikar variety had the highest index of stress resistance (–2.32), while Riks had the highest index in the mid-late group (–2.54). The highest average productivity under contrasting conditions among midseason varieties was observed for the Aviada variety (4.24 t/ha), and that among mid-late varieties was for the Kvintus variety (4.73 t/ha). In terms of responsiveness to changing conditions, three groups of varieties were distinguished: strongly responsive (midseason Lutestsens 70, Aviada, mid-late Melodiya, Kvintus), plastic (midseason Chernyava 13, Skent 3, Omskaya 36, Tyumenskaya 25, Tyumenskaya 29, mid-late Ingala, Yamalskaya) and weakly responsive (midseason varieties Ikar, Sigma, mid-late varieties Riks, Stepnaya Niva). In all varieties, regardless of the ripeness group, low homeostaticity was determined. The Ikar variety (Hom = 6.59) was the best based on homeostaticity in the midseason group, and Riks was the best in the mid-late group (Hom = 5.48). In general, all varieties were characterized by a low general adaptive ability (GAA). Relatively high values of GAA in the midseason group were found for the Aviada variety (GAA = 0.19) and for Kvintus (GAA = 0.50) in the mid-late group. Based on the comprehensive assessment of varieties in terms of productivity and adaptability parameters, Tyumenskaya 25 and Tyumenskaya 29 were the best midseason varieties in the North Trans-Urals, while Melodiya and Ingala were the best among mid-late varieties.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. Anosov, S.I., Sovetov, V.V., Likhenko, I.E., Ageeva, E.V., Likhenko, N.I., and Shraiber, P.P., Creation of mid-ripening cultivars of spring wheat, Sib. Vestn. S-kh. Nauki, 2015, no. 4, pp. 20–25.

  2. Zakharov, V.G. and Yakovleva, O.D., Changes in yield and elements of its structure in cultivarts of spring wheat of different periods of cultivar changing, Dostizh. Nauki Tekh. Agroprom. Kompleksa, 2015, no. 29, pp. 53–57.

  3. Bacha, T., Alemerew, S., and Tadesse, Z., Genotype x environment interaction and yield stability of bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotype in Ethiopia using the ammi analysis, J. Biol. Agric. Healthcare, 2015, no. 5, pp. 129–139.

  4. Komarov, N.M., Some aspects of the problem of “genotype–environment” interaction, Dostizh. Nauki Tekh. Agroprom. Kompleksa, 2012, no. 7, pp. 39–41.

  5. Dragavtsev, V.A., Dragavtseva, I.A., Efimova, I.L., Morinets, A.S., and Savin, I.Yu., Managing the “genotype–environment” interaction, the most important lever for increasing yields of agricultural plants, Tr. Kuban. Gos. Agrarn. Univ., 2016, no. 2, pp. 105–121.

  6. Ayalneh, T., Letta, T., and Abinasa, M., Assessment of stability, adaptability and yield performance of bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars in South Eastern Ethiopia, Plant Breed. Seed Sci., 2013, no. 67, pp. 3–11.

  7. Goncharenko, A.A., Ecological stability of cultivars of grain crops and the breeding problems, Zernovoe Khoz. Ross., 2016, no. 2, pp. 31–36.

  8. Surin, N.A., Zobova, N.V., Lyakhova, N.E., Neshumaeva, N.V., Plekhanova, L.V., Chuslin, A.A., Onufrienok, T.V., Gerasimov, S.A., and Lipshin, A.G., Sources of valuable traits in the breeding of barley for adaptability, Dostizh. Nauki Tekh. Agroprom. Kompleksa, 2016, no. 30, pp. 36–40.

  9. Hassan, M.S., Mohamed, G.I.A., and El-Said, R.A.R., Stability analysis for grain yield and its components of some durum wheat genotypes (Triticum durum L.) under different environments, Asian J. Crop Sci., 2013, no. 5, pp. 179–189.

  10. Sapega, V.A., Yield, realization of its potential, and adaptability of spring wheat cultivars, Dostizh. Nauki Tekh. Agroprom. Kompleksa, 2017, no. 31, pp. 49–52.

  11. Khangil’din, V.V., Parameters of homeostasis of cultivars and breeding lines in trials of cereals, Nauchn.-Tekh. Byull. Vses. Sel.-Genet. Inst., 1986, no. 2, pp. 36–41.

  12. Eberhart, S.A. and Russell, W.A., Stability parameters for comparing varieties, Crop Sci., 1966, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 36–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dospekhov, B.A., Metodika polevogo opyta (s osnovami statisticheskoi obrabotki rezul’tatov issledovanii) (Methodology of Field Experiments (with the Basics of Statistical Processing of Research Results)), Moscow: Moscow: Al’yans, 2011.

  14. Rossielle, A.A. and Hamblin, J., Theoretical aspects of selection for yield in stress and non-stress environments, Crop Sci., 1981, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 27–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Goncharenko, A.A., On the adaptive capacity and environmental sustainability of grain cultivars, Vestn. Ross. S-kh. Akad., 2005, no. 6, pp. 49–53.

  16. Kil’chevskii, A.V. and Khotyleva, L.V., Determination of adaptive ability of genotypes and differentiating ability of the environment, Dokl. Akad. Nauk BSSR, 1985, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 374–376.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Korobeinikov, N.I., Valekzhanin, V.S., and Peshkova, N.V., Principles and main results of spring soft wheat breeding in Altai Krai (2007–2014), Dostizh. Nauki Tekh. Agroprom. Kompleksa, 2015, no. 29, pp. 21–26.

  18. Zhuchenko, A.A., Adaptivnaya sistema selektsii rastenii (ekologo-geneticheskie osnovy) (Adaptive System of Plant Breeding (Ecological and Genetic Grounds)), Moscow: Ross. Univ. Druzhby Nar., 2001, vol. 1.

  19. Sapega, V.A., Productivity, homeostatism, and grain quality of spring wheat cultivars, Agro XXI, 2014, nos. 10–12, pp. 3–5.

  20. Mohamed, N.E., Genotype by environment interaction for grain yield in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), J. Plant Breed. Crop Sci., 2013, no. 7, pp. 15–60.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to V. A. Sapega.

Ethics declarations

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. This article does not contain any studies involving animals or human participants performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Translated by V. Mittova

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sapega, V.A. Genotype–Environment Interaction, Productivity, and Adaptive Potential of Spring Wheat Varieties. Russ. Agricult. Sci. 45, 323–329 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3103/S1068367419040153

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3103/S1068367419040153

Keywords:

Navigation