Advertisement

Cereal Research Communications

, Volume 37, Issue 4, pp 567–574 | Cite as

Honeycomb evaluation of barley germplasm under pre-evaluated environments

  • V. Greveniotis
  • O. Xanthopoulou
  • E. Pessios
  • P. Deligeorgidis
  • D. Stefanis
  • C. G. IpsilandisEmail author
Open Access
Breeding

Abstract

Preliminary environment evaluation based on maize data from Randomized Complete Block designs conducted in Florina and Thessaloniki, allowed the comparative analysis of newer and older Greek barley varieties. Yield measurements were followed by additional measurements of field characteristics that involved plant height in March, total plant height at maturity, vegetative period in days, susceptibility to lodging, kernel protein (%), 1000-kernel weight, number of tillers, number of kernels per ear and length of ear. Yield was additionally analyzed in components according to honeycomb methodology that depict yielding performance per se, resistance to stresses and responsiveness to inputs. According to honeycomb methodology, differences found between barley varieties studied are more reliable and breeders can depend on these findings to define the use of each variety according to differences in yield components. The yielding performance of newer barley varieties depends on the number of fertile tillers that contributes to higher individual plant yield and additionally, to high tolerance or resistance to various stresses and high responsiveness to inputs. Newer varieties Persefoni and Demetra exhibited great and stable yielding performance and high productivity dynamic that overyielded all other varieties, while Thermi although an old variety, proved to be a very good genetic material with satisfactory characteristics and yielding performance.

Keywords

barley germplasm evaluation criteria honeycomb 

References

  1. Anderson, M.K., Reinbergs, E. 1985. Barley breeding (ed. D.C. Rasmusson). Series Monograph. ASA-CSSA-SSSA, Madison, WI 53711, USA, 26:231–268.Google Scholar
  2. Austin, R.B. 1993. Augmenting yield-based selection. In: Hayward, M.D., Bosemark, N.O., Romagosa, I. (eds), Plant Breeding: Principles and Prospects. Chapman and Hall, London, pp. 391–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Austin, R.B., Ford, M.A., Morgan, C.L. 1989. Genetic improvement in the yield of winter wheat: A further evaluation. J. Agric. Sci. (Cambridge) 112:295–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Constantinidou, K., Fasoulas, A.C. 1988. Evidence for the genetic basis of heterosis during hybrid reconstruction in maize. Proceedings of the 2nd Congress of the Hellenic Society for the Genetic Improvement of Plants. Thessaloniki. pp. 215–225.Google Scholar
  5. Dhimas, K.V., Eleftherohorinos, I.G., Vasilakoglou, I.B. 2000. Interference between Avena sterilis, Phalaris minor and five barley cultivars. Weed Res. 40:549–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Duvick, D.N. 1977. Genetic rates of gain in hybrid maize yields during the past 40 years. Maydica 22:187–196.Google Scholar
  7. Duvick, D.N. 1997. What is yield? In: Edmeades, G.O., Banzinger, B., Mickelson, H.R., Pena-Valdivia, C.B. (eds), Developing Drought and Low N-Tolerant Maize. Proceedings of a Symposium, March 25–29, 1996, CIMMYT, El Batan, Mexico. Mexico, D.F. pp. 332–335.Google Scholar
  8. Ekman, R. 1981. Biomass component studies in barley, their correlation to some yield characters and estimation of durable effect from 50 years of barley breeding. Proc. 4th Int. Barley Genetics Symp., Edinburgh, Scotland. 22–29 July. Edinburgh Press, pp. 104–111.Google Scholar
  9. Evans, L.T. 1980. The natural history of crop yield. American Scientist 68:388–397.Google Scholar
  10. Fasoula, V.A., Fasoula, D.A. 2000. Honeycomb breeding: Principles and applications. Plant Breed. Rev. 18:177–250.Google Scholar
  11. Fasoula, V.A., Fasoula, D.A. 2002. Principles underlying genetic improvement for high and stable crop yield potential. Field Crops Res. 75:191–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fasoulas, A.C. 1981. Principles and methods of plant breeding. Publ. No 11. Dept. of Genetics and Plant Breeding. Aristotle Univ. of Thessaloniki. Thessaloniki, Greece. p. 148.Google Scholar
  13. Fasoulas, A.C. 1993. Principles of crop breeding. A.C. Fasoulas, P.O. Box 19555, Thessaloniki, Greece. p. 128.Google Scholar
  14. Fasoulas, A.C., Fasoula, V.A. 1995. Honeycomb selection designs. Plant Breed. Rev. 13:87–138.Google Scholar
  15. Gogas, D.M. 1989. Yield stabilty and quality fluctuations in five breadwheat varieties cultivated in Greece. Agr. Med. 119:361–365.Google Scholar
  16. Greveniotis, V., Koutsika-Sotiriou, M., Bladenopoulos, K. 2004. Evaluation of the yield potential of six barley cultivars. (In Greek with English Summary). 10th Congress of the Greek Plant Breeding Society. November 24–26, Athens, Greece, pp. 261–265.Google Scholar
  17. Gymer, P.T. 1981. The achievements of 100 years and barley breeding. Proc. 4th Int. Barley Genetics Symp., Edinburgh, Scotland. 22–29 July. Edinburgh Press, pp. 112–117.Google Scholar
  18. Ipsilandis, C.G., Vafias, B.N. 2005. Plant density effects on grain yield per plant in Maize: Breeding implications. Asian J. Plant Sci. 4:31–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ipsilandis, K. 1996. The possibility to predict combining ability between maize inbred lines based on best cross performance. Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. Genetics and Plant breeding. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Greece. 120 pp.Google Scholar
  20. Koparanis, T., Bladenopoulos, K., Koutsika-Sotiriou, M. 2006. Biological and conventional cultivation effect on agronomic behavior between six old and new barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) varieties and estimation of their yield potential. (In Greek with English summary). Agricult. Res. (NAGREF) 29:41–52.Google Scholar
  21. Miller, F.I., Anderson, K.L. 1963. Relationship in winter wheat between lodging, physical properties of stem and fertilizer treatments. Crop Sci. 3:468–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Riggs, T.J., Hanson, P.R., Start, N.D., Miles, D.M., Morgan, C.L., Ford, M.A. 1981. Comparison of spring barley varieties grown in England and Wales between 1880 and 1980. J. Agric. Sci. 97:599–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Snedecor, G.W., Cochran, W.G. 1980. Statistical Methods. 7th ed. The Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames, IA.Google Scholar
  24. Wych, R.D., Rasmusson, D.C. 1983. Genetic improvement in malting barley cultivars since 1920. Crop Sci. 23:1037–1040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2009

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. Greveniotis
    • 1
  • O. Xanthopoulou
    • 1
  • E. Pessios
    • 2
  • P. Deligeorgidis
    • 2
  • D. Stefanis
    • 2
  • C. G. Ipsilandis
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Genetics and Plant BreedingAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece
  2. 2.Department of Plant SciencesTechnological Education Institution of Western Macedonia, Branch of FlorinaFlorinaGreece

Personalised recommendations