Evaluation of drought tolerance in endemic ecotypes of cumin using tolerance indices

Document Type : original paper

Authors

Abstract

Background and objectives: Cumin is known as the most important cultivated medicinal plant in Iran that its importance and cultivation area increase every year. Cumin seed yield reduction occurs in most regions of Iran due to the water stress. So far, based on literature review, major evaluations have been done using limited cumin ecotypes or mainly conducted under normal irrigated condition in the country; So this study was designed to assess the most diverse cumin ecotypes currently cultivated in the major cumin cultivation areas of Iran in terms of seed yield, determination the effect of drought stress during flowering stage, identification of drought tolerant ecotypes to from segregating population using tolerance indices and indication of ecotypes response to drought stress and normal irrigation conditions.
Materials and methods: To determine the effect of water stress on yield of 49 cumin ecotypes adapted to Iran, a simple 7 × 7 lattice design with two replications was conducted in research farm of college of Aburaihan, University of Tehran. Experiment was conducted during 2012-13 crop season. Water stress initiated at 50% flowering stage when the soil humidity reached to 30% field capacity. Analysis of variance based on lattice design and evaluation of the relative performance compared to randomized complete block design were done. Further analysis was done based on randomized block design after correction of data. Calculation of 11 drought tolerance indices based on yield under drought and normal irrigated conditions, correlations among indices and seed yield and principle component analysis based on correlation coefficient matric were followed.
Results: Lattice design relative performance compared to randomized complete block design was 153 and 148 percent in normal and stress conditions, respectively. Eleven different tolerance indices were estimated based on yield in both conditions. Correlation analysis, principal component analysis and biplot display showed indices MP, GMP, STI, Harm, K1STI and K2STI as suitable indicators showing high yield potential and stability. Cluster analysis based on indices grouped all ecotypes into three distinct groups. Tolerant ecotypes were placed in the same group. Ecotypes distribution in the biplot revealed genetic variation among genotypes regarding drought tolerance response.
Conclusion: Ecotype of Kerman (Baft), South Khorasan (Darmian) and Yazd (Sadooq) identified as most tolerant ecotypes while ecotypes from North Khorasan (Esfaraien), Esfahan (Ardestan) and Khorasan-Razavi (Kashmar) identified as most sensitive ecotypes to drought stress in flowering stage. Then usage of these accessions are recommended as parents to improve tolerant cumin cultivars in breeding programs.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

1. Bahraminejad, A., Mohammadi-Nejad, Gh. and Khadir, M. 2011. Genetic diversity evaluation of Cumin (Cumin cyminum L.) based on phenotypic traits. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 5: 301-307.
2. Balndri, A. and Rezvani moghadam, V. 1994. Botanic collection and characterization of cumin (Cuminum cyminum L.) landraces of Iran. Scientific Research and Technology - Institute of Khorasan. 84-92. (In Persian)
3. Bouslama, M. and Schapaugh, W. 1984. Stress tolerance in soybeans. I. Evaluation of three screening techniques for heat and drought tolerance. Crop Sci. 24(5): 933-937.
4. Eskandari, H. and Kazemi, K. 2010. Response of different bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes to post-anthesis water deficit. Not. Sci. Biol.2(4): 49-52.
5. Farshadfar, E. and Sutka, J. 2002. Screening drought tolerance criteria in maize. Acta Agron. Hungarica. 50(4): 411–416.
6. Farshadfar, E., Poursiahbidi, M.M. and Safavi, S.M. 2013. Assessment of drought tolerance in land races of bread wheat based on resistance/tolerance indices. Int. J. Adv. Bio. Biom. Res. 2: 143-158.
7. Fernandez, G.C. 1992. Effective selection criteria for assessing plant stress tolerance. International symposium on adaptation of vegetables and other food crops in temperature and water stress. Taiwan. 257- 270.
8. Fischer, R.A. and Maurer, R. 1978. Drought resistance in spring wheat cultivars. I. Grain yield responses. Crop Past. Sci. 29(5): 897-912.
9. Kafi, M., Rashed-Mohassel, M.H., Koocheki, A. and Mlafylaby, A. 2003. Technology, production and processing cumin. Publications Excellence in Special Crops, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. Press, 195p. (In Persian)
10.Karimi Afshar, A., Baghizadeh, A., Mohammadi-Nejad, Gh. and Abedi, J. 2014. Assessment of cumin (Cuminum cyminum L.) genotypes under drought stress based on drought tolerance indicators, 1st International and 13th Iranian Genetics Congress, The Thirteenth International Congress of Genetics
Congress. 1-4. (In Persian)
11.Knight, C.A., Vogel, H., Kroymann, J., Shumate, A., Witsenboer, H. and Mitchell-oldst, T. 2006. Expression profiling and local adaptation of Boechera holboellii populations for water use efficiency across a naturally occurring water stress gradient. Mol. Ecol. 15(5): 1229-1237.
12.Lan, J. 1998. Comparison of evaluating methods for agronomic drought resistance in crops. Acta Agri. Boreali-Occidentalis Sinica. 7(3): 85-87.
13.Mohammadi, R., Armion, M., Kahrizi, D. and Amri, A. 2010. Efficiency of screening techniques for evaluating durum wheat genotypes under mild drought conditions. Int. J. Plant Prod. 4(1): 1735-8043.
14.Monajem, S., Mohammadi, V. and Ahmadi A. 2011. Evaluation of drought tolerance in some rapeseed Cultivars based on stress evaluation indices, Elec. J. Crop. Prod., 4(1): 151-169.
15.Moosavi, S.S., Yazdi-Samadi, B., Naghavi, M.R., Zali, A.A., Dashti, H. and Pourshahbazi, A. 2008. Introduction of new indices to identify relative drought tolerance and resistance in wheat genotypes. Desert. 12: 165-178.
16.Motamedi-Mirhoseini, L., Mohamadi-Nejad, Gh., Bahraminejad, A., Golkar, P. and  ohammadinejad, Z. 2011. Evaluation of cumin (Cuminum cyminum L.) landraces under drought stress based on some agronomic traits. Afr. J. Plant Sci. 5(14): 819-822.
17.Motamedi-Mirhosseini, L., Mohammadi-Nejad, G., Golkar, P. and BahramiNejad, A. 2011.  Evaluation of Some Drought Resistance Criteria in Cumin (Cuminum Cyminum L.) Landraces. Adv. Environ. Biol. 5(8): 2369-2372.
18.Mozaffarian, V. 1983. The family of umbelliferae in Iran-Keys and distribution. Research Institute of Forest and Rangelands Press, Tehran, 114-116.
19.Naeemi, M., Akbari, Gh., Shirani Rad, A.H., Modares Sanavi, S.A.M., SadatNoori, S.A. and Jabari, H. 2008. Evaluation of drought tolerance in different Canola cultivars based on stress evaluation indices in terminal growth duration. Eelec. J. Crop Prod. 1(3): 83-98. (in Persian)
20.Nofouzi, F., Rashidi, V. and Tarinejad, A.R. 2008. Path Analysis of Grain Yield with Its Components in Durum Wheat under Drought Stress. Int. Meeting on Soil Fertility Land Management and Agro-climatology. Turkey. 681-686.
21.Nouri, A., Etminan, A., Jaime, A., Silva, T.D. and Mohammadi, R. 2011. Assessment of yield, yield- related traits and drought tolerance of durum wheat genotypes (Tritium turjidum var. durum Desf.). Aust. J. Crop Sic. 5(1): 8-16.
22.Porch, T.G. 2006. Application of stress indices for heat tolerance screening of common bean. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 192: 390-394.
23.Rosielle, A. and Hamblin, J. 1981. Theoretical aspects of selection for yield in stress and non-stress environment. Crop Sci. 21(6): 943-946.
24.Soleymanifard, A., Fasihi, Kh., Nasrirad, H. and Naseri, R. 2010. Evolution of stress tolerance indices in durum wheat genotypes. J. Plant Prod. 17(2): 39-58. (In Persian)
25.Tabatabaei, S.M., Mohammadi-Nejad, Gh. and Yousefi, Kh. 2014. Yield assessment and drought tolerance indices in cumin ecotypes. J. Water Res. Agri. 28(1): 163-170. (In Persian)
26.Yazdi-Samadi, B., Rezaei, A. and Valyzadeh, M. 2004. Statistical designs in agricultural research. University of Tehran Press. 739p. (In Persian)
27.Zahravi, M. 2009. Evaluation of genotypes of wild barley (Hordeum spontaneum) based on drought tolerance indices. Seed Plant Improv. J. 25(1): 533-549. (In Persian)
Journal of Plant Production Research
Volume 23, Issue 4
February 2017
Pages 185-204

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics