Journal of Crop Science and Biotechnology

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 265–274 | Cite as

Genotype x environment interaction for durum wheat grain yield and selection for drought tolerance in irrigated and droughted environments in Iran

Research Article


Durum wheat is grown in the Mediterranean region under stressful and variable environmental conditions. In a 4-year-long experiment, 14 genotypes [including 11 durum breeding lines, two durum (Zardak) and bread (Sardari) wheat landraces, and one durum (Saji) newly released variety] were evaluated under rainfed and irrigated conditions in Iran. Several selection indices [i.e. stress tolerance index (STI), drought tolerance efficiency (DTE), and irrigation efficiency (IE)] were used to characterize genotypic differences in response to drought. The GGE biplot methodology was applied to analyze a three-way genotype-environment-trait data. Combined ANOVA showed that the year effect was a predominant source of variation. The genotypes differed significantly (P < 0.01) in grain yield in the both rainfed and irrigated conditions. Graphic analysis of the relationship among the selection indices indicated that they are not correlated in ranking of genotypes. The two wheat landraces and the durum-improved variety with high DTE had minimum yield reduction under drought-stressed environments. According to STI, which combines yield potential and drought tolerance, the “Saji” cultivar followed by some breeding lines (G11, G8, and G4) performed better than the two landraces and were found to be stable and high-yielding genotypes in drought-prone rainfed environments. The breeding lines G8, G6, G4, and G9 were the efficient genotypes responding to irrigation utilization. In conclusion, the identification of the durum genotypes (G12, G11, and G4) with high yield and stability performance under unpredictable environments and high tolerance to drought stress conditions can help breeding programs and eventually contribute to increasing and sustainability of durum production in the unpredictable conditions of Iran.

Key words

biplot analysis drought tolerance durum wheat GE interaction genotype discrimination stability 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Atlin GN, Baker RJ, McRae KB, Lu X. 2000. Selection response in subdivided target regions. Crop Sci. 40: 7–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bansal KC, Sinha SK. 1991. Assessment of drought resistance in accessions of Triticum aestivum and related species. I. Total dry matter and grain yield stability. Euphytica 56: 7–14Google Scholar
  3. Beltrano J, Marta GR. 2008. Improved tolerance of wheat plants (Triticum aestivum L.) to drought stress and rewatering by the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus Glomus claroideum: Effecton growth and cell membrane stability. Braz. J. Plant Physiol. 20: 29–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benmahammed A, Kribaa M, Bouzerzour H, Djekoun A. 2010. Assessment of stress tolerance in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) advanced breeding lines under semi-arid conditions of the eastern high plateaus of Algeria. Euphytica 172: 383–394Google Scholar
  5. Bidinger FR, Mahalaxmi V, Talukdar BJ, Algarswamy G. 1982. Improvement of drought resistance in pearl millet. Workshop on Principles and Methods of Crop Improvement for Drought Resistance with Emphasis on Rice, IRRI, Los Banos, Phillipines, May 4–8th 1981, pp 45–49Google Scholar
  6. Blum A. 1996. Crop responses to drought and the interpretation of adaptation. Plant Growth Regul. 20: 135–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borojevic S. 1981. Principles and Methods of Plant Breeding, Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  8. Butron A, Velasco P, Ordás A, Malvar RA 2004. Yield evaluation of maize cultivars across environments with different levels of pink stem borer infestation. Crop Sci. 44: 741–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ceccarelli S, Grando S. 1991. Selection environment and environmental sensitivity in barley. Euphytica 57: 157–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chapman SC, Crossa J, Edmeades GO. 1997. Genotype by environment effects and selection for drought tolerance in tropical maize. I. Two mode pattern analysis of yield. Euphytica 95: 1–9Google Scholar
  11. Clarke JM, De Pauw RM, Townley-Smith TM. 1992. Evaluation of methods for quantification of drought tolerance in wheat. Crop Sci. 32: 728–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crossa J, Cornelius PL, Yan W. 2002. Biplots of linear -bilinear models for studying crossover genotype x environment interaction. Crop Sci. 42: 136–144Google Scholar
  13. Crossa J, Fox PN, Pfeiffer WH, Rajaram S, Gauch HG. 1991. AMMI adjustment for statistical analysis of an international wheat yield trial. Theor. Appl. Genet. 81: 27–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dencic S, Kastori R, Kobiljski B, Duggan B. 2000. Evaluation of grain yield and its components in wheat cultivars and landraces under near optimal and drought conditions. Euphytica 113: 43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dodig D, Zoric M, Knezevic D, King SR, Surlan-Momirovic G. 2008. Genotype x environment interaction for wheat yield in different drought stress conditions and agronomic traits suitable for selection. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 59: 536–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dorcinvil R, Sotomayor-Ramirez D, Beaver J. 2010. Agronomic performance of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) lines in an Oxisol. Field Crops Res. 118: 264–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dos Santos AB, Fageria NK. 2007. Nitrogen fertilizer management for efficient use by dry bean in tropical lowland. Pesqui. Agropecu. Bras. 42: 1237–1248Google Scholar
  18. Egesi CN, Ilona P, Ogbe FO, Akoroda M, Dixon A. 2007. Genetic variation and genotype x environment interaction for yield and other agronomic traits in Cassava in Nigeria. Agron. J. 99: 1137–1142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fan XM, Kang MS, Chen H, Zhang Y, Tan J, Xu C. 2007. Yield stability of maize hybrids evaluated in multi-environment trials in Yunnan, China. Agron. J. 99: 220–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fernandez GCJ. 1992. Effective selection criteria for assessing plant stress tolerance. In CG Kuo, ed, Adaptation of Food Crops to Temperature and Water Stress, Publication Number 93-410. Asian Vegetable Research Development Center, Shanhua, Taiwan, pp257–270Google Scholar
  21. Fernandez-Aparicio M, Flores F, Rubiales D. 2009. Field response of Lathyrus cicera germplasm to crenate broomrape (Orobanche crenata). Field Crops Res. 113: 321–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fischer RA, Maurer R. 1978. Drought resistance in spring wheat cultivars. I. Grain yield responses. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 29: 897–912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fischer KS, Wood G. 1981. Breeding and selection for drought tolerance in tropical maize. In Proc. Symp. on Principles and Methods in Crop Improvement for Drought Resistance with Emphasis on Rice, IRRI, PhilippinesGoogle Scholar
  24. Gauch HG. 1988. Model selection and validation for yield trials with interaction. Biometrics 44: 705–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gauch HG, Zobel RW. 1997. Identifying mega-environments and targeting genotypes. Crop Sci. 37: 311–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hohls T. 2001. Conditions under which selection for mean productivity, tolerance to environmental stress, or stability should be used to improve yield across a range of contrasting environments. Euphytica 120: 235–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Laffont JL, Hanafi M, Wright K. 2007. Numerical and graphical measures to facilitate the interpretation of GGE biplots. Crop Sci. 47: 990–996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lee SJ, Yan W, Joung KA, Ill MC. 2003. Effects of year, site, genotype, and their interactions on the concentration of various isoflavones in soybean. Field Crops Res. 81: 181–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lin CS, Binns MR. 1988. A superiority measure of cultivar performance for cultivar x location data. Can. J. Plant Sci. 68: 193–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mohammadi R, Haghparast R, Amri A, Ceccarelli S. 2010. Yield stability of rainfed durum wheat and GGE biplot analysis of multi-environment trials. Crop Pasture Sci. 61: 92–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ober ES, Clark CJA, Bloa ML, Royal A, Jaggard KW, Pidgeon JD. 2004. Assessing the genetic resources to improve drought tolerance in sugar beet: agronomic traits of diverse genotypes under droughted and irrigated conditions. Field Crops Res. 90: 213–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Panthuwan G, Fukai S, Cooper M, Rajatasereekul S, O’Toole JC. 2002. Yield responses of rice (Oryza sativa L.) genotypes to different types of drought under rainfed lowlands. Part I. Grain yield and yield components. Field Crops Res. 73: 153–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Peterson DM, Wesenberg DM, Burrup DE, Erickson CA. 2005. Relationships among agronomic traits and grain composition in oat genotypes grown in different environments. Crop Sci. 45: 1249–1255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rashid A, Saleem Q, Nazir A, Kazım HS. 2003. Yield potential and stability of nine wheat varieties under water stress conditions. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 5: 7–9Google Scholar
  35. Rizza F, Badeckb FW, Cattivellia L, Lidestric O, Di Fonzoc N, Stanca AM. 2004. Use of a water stress index to identify barley genotypes adapted to rainfed and irrigated conditions. Crop Sci. 44: 2127–2137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Samonte SOPB, Wilson LT, McClung AM, Medley JC. 2005. Targeting cultivars onto rice growing environments using AMMI and SREG GGE biplot analysis. Crop Sci. 45: 2414–2424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sudaric A, Simic D, Vrataric M. 2006. Characterization of genotype by environment interactions in soybean breeding programmes of southeast Europe. Plant Breed. 125: 191–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Voltas J, Romagosa I, Lafarga A, Armesto AP, Sombrero A, Araus JL. 1999. Genotype by environment interaction for grain yield and carbon isotope discrimination of barley in Mediterranean Spain. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 50: 1263–1271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yan W. 2001. GGEBiplot-A Windows application for graphical analysis of multi-environment trial data and other types of two-way data. Agron. J. 93: 1111–1118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Yan W, Cornelius PL, Crossa J, Hunt LA. 2001. Two types of GGE biplots for analyzing multi-environment trial data. Crop Sci. 41: 656–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yan W, Hunt LA. 2002. Biplot analysis of diallel data. Crop Sci. 42: 21–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yan W, Hunt LA, Sheng Q, Szlavnics Z. 2000. Cultivar evaluation and mega-environment investigation based on the GGE biplot. Crop Sci. 40: 597–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Yan W, Kang MS. 2003. GGE Biplot Analysis: A graphical tool for breeders, geneticists, and agronomists. CRC Press, Boca Raton, p 213Google Scholar
  44. Yan W, Rajcan IR. 2002. Biplot analysis of test sites and trait relations of soybean in Ontario. Can. J. Plant Sci. 42: 11–20Google Scholar
  45. Zobel RW, Wright MG, Gauch HG. 1988. Statistical analysis of yield trial. Agron. J. 80: 388–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Crop Science and Springer Netherlands 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dryland Agricultural Research Institute (DARI)KermanshahIran
  2. 2.International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA)AleppoSyria

Personalised recommendations