Advertisement

Journal of Crop Science and Biotechnology

, Volume 21, Issue 5, pp 483–490 | Cite as

Using GGE Biplot Analysis to Evaluate Interrelationships between Yield and Yield Components of Oat Genotypes in Different Growing Seasons

  • Mevlüt Akcura
  • Burcu Sabandüzen
  • Onur HocaoğluEmail author
Research Article
  • 47 Downloads

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate oat genotypes for grain yield and yield components in both 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 growing seasons using GGE biplot analysis. Experiments were laid out according to lattice design. Biomass at harvest, grain yield, number of grain per panicle, weight of grain per panicle, flag leaf width, flag leaf height, plant height, stem diameter, thousand kernel weight, time of panicle emergence, harvest index, panicle length, and spikelet per panicle were evaluated for 56 oat genotypes. GGE biplot graphics of the first and second years explained 54.4 and 55% of total variation, respectively. Grain yield, number of grains per panicle, and weight of grain per panicle were closely and positively associated in both growing seasons. Recently registered cultivar Sari and lines 26, 29, and 30 were found as promising genotypes for Çanakkale conditions. Traits of genotype at different growing seasons can be visually studied using different genotype-by-trait (GT) biplots.

Key words

Oat grain yield grain yield components genotype trait biplot analysis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anonymous. 2016a. Climate of Turkey according to Köppen climate classification. Climatology Branch Directorate Research Department of Turkish State Meteorological Service Ministry of Agriculture and ForestryGoogle Scholar
  2. (Turkish) Anonymous 2016b. Turkish State Meteorological Service. (Accessed: 1 February 2017) http: //www.mgm.gov.trGoogle Scholar
  3. Aydın N, Mut Z, Mut H, Ayan I. 2010. Effect of autumn and spring Sowing dates on hay yield and quality of oat (Avena sativa L.) genotypes. J. Anim. Vet. Adv. 9(10): 1539–1545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Başer KHC. 2002. Fonksiyonel Gıdalar Ve Nutrasötikler. 4. Bitkisel ilaç Hammadde toplantısı Eskişehir, 29–31 Mayıs, 2002, 31–44Google Scholar
  5. Dhima KV, Lithourgidis AS, Vasilakoglou IB, Dordas CA. 2007. Competition indices of common vetch and cereal intercrops in two seeding ratio. Field Crops Res. 100(2–3): 249–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Doehlert DC, McMullen MS, Hammond JJ. 2001. Genotypic and environmental effects on grain yield and quality of oat grown in North Dakota. Crop Sci. 41: 1066–1072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dumlupınar Z. 2010. Characterization of Turkey origin oat genotypes by avenin proteins according to morphological, phenological and agronomic traits. Ph. D. Thesis. University of KahramanmaraşGoogle Scholar
  8. Sütçü, Kahramanmaraş, Turkey Emmons CL, Peterson DM, Paul GL. 1999. Antioxidant capacity of oat (Avena sativa L.) extracts. 2. In vitro antioxidant activity and contents of phenolic and tocol antioxidants. J. Agric. Food Chem. 47(12): 4894–4898Google Scholar
  9. FAO. 2015. http: //faostat.fao.org (Accessed: 10 December 2017)Google Scholar
  10. Flander L, Salmenkallio–Marttila M, Suortti T, Autio K. 2007. Optimization of ingredients and baking process for improved whole meal oat bread quality. LWT–Food Sci. Technol. 40(5): 860–870Google Scholar
  11. Gül H, Dizlek H, Alparslan Ş. 2008. Yulafın Bileşimi ve Gıda Sanayinde Kullanım Olanakları., Hasad Gıda 23, 274: 38–43Google Scholar
  12. Kabak D, Akçura M. 2017. Bingöl İlinden Toplanan Yerel Çavdarlarda Tane Verimi ve Bazı Özellikler Arasındaki İlişkilerin Biplot Analizi İle İncelenmesi. Türk Tarım ve Doğa Bilimleri Dergisi 4(2): 227–235Google Scholar
  13. Lockhart HB, Hurt HD. 1986. Nutrition of oats, in Oats: Chemistry and Technology, (ed F.H. Webster), American Association of Cereal Chemists, Inc., St. Paul, MN, pp. 297–308Google Scholar
  14. Mohammadi R, Amri A. 2011. Graphic analysis of trait relations and genotype evaluation in durum wheat. J. Crop Improv. 25(6): 680–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mut Z, Akay H, Sezer İ, Gülümser A, Öner F, Erbaş ÖD. 2011. Farklı Orijinli Yulaf (Avena sativa L.) Genotiplerinin Samsun Ekolojik Koşullarında Tarımsal Ve Bazı Kalite Özelliklerinin Tespiti. 9. Tarla Bitkileri Kongresi 12–15 Eylül 2011 (Cilt 1, S: 88–93), BursaGoogle Scholar
  16. Ozcan MM, Ozkan G, Topal A. 2006. Characteristics of grains and oils of four different oats (Avena sativa L.) cultivars growing in Turkey. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 57(5–6), 345–352Google Scholar
  17. Peterson DM. 2004. Oat–a multifunctional grain. 7th International Oat Conference Proceedings, Agrifood Research Reports 51, MTT Agrifood Research FinlandGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Singh U, Singh SR, Saad AA, Khanday BA, Singh JK, 2011. Yield advantage, reciprosity functions and energy budgeting of lentil (Lens culinaris) + oat (Avena sativa) intercropping under varying row ratio and phosphorus management. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 81(3): 219Google Scholar
  20. Yan W. 2001. GGEbiplot—A Windows Application for Graphical Analysis of Multienvironment Trial Data and Other Types of Two–Way Data. Agronomy Journal–AGRON J. 93. 10.2134/agronj2001.9351111xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Yan W. 2014. Crop variety trials: Data management and analysis. John Wiley & Sons, UK. ISBN 978–1–118–68855–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Yan W, Kang MS. 2002. GGE biplot analysis: A graphical tool for breeders, geneticists, and agronomists. CRC PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Yan W, Tinker NA. 2006. Biplot analysis of multi–environment trial data: Principles and applications. Can. J. Plant Sci. 86: 623–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Crop Science (KSCS) and Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mevlüt Akcura
    • 1
  • Burcu Sabandüzen
    • 1
  • Onur Hocaoğlu
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Field Crops Department, Faculty of AgricultureÇanakkale Onsekiz Mart UniversityÇanakkaleTurkey

Personalised recommendations