Determination of drought resistance of soybean breeding material
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30835/2413-7510.2023.283655Keywords:
soybean, variety testing, hydrothermal condition, drought resistance, productivity, drought resistance indices, breeding, breeding materialAbstract
The purpose and objectives of the study. To determine the resistance of soybean genotypes to drought according to drought resistance indices based on the analysis of yield in years contrasting in terms of hydrometeorological conditions.
Materials and research methods. The material for determining the influence of year conditions on the level of average yield of soybeans and drought resistance were varieties and breeding numbers of the competitive variety test (CVT). Experiments were carried out in four repetitions with a plot area of 25 m2. Drought intensity (D) was determined by the formula proposed by Fischer R.A. and Maurer R. Differentiation of breeding numbers and varieties of CVT soybeans was carried out according to yield in 2016 and 2018 according to indices of drought susceptibility (DSI), drought tolerance (TOL), average yield (MP), yield stability (YSI), yield (YI), stress tolerance (STI), geometric mean yield (GMP). Processing of research results was carried out according to B.O. Dospehov [27] using STATISTICA 10 and Excel programs.
The discussion of the results. During the research period (2008–2021), the highest yield of soybeans in CVT was obtained in 2016 – 2.57 t/ha, and the lowest in 2018 – 0.50 t/ha. A comparison of soybean yield in CVT in 2016 and 2018 showed that the average yield loss due to drought was 2.07 t/ha, or 81%. At the minimum yield, losses were equal to 1.78 t/ha, or 84.8%. At the maximum – 2.19 t/ha and 75.5%, respectively. Therefore, the minimum yield difference was greater than the maximum yield difference. The level of drought intensity (D) in the dry year of 2018 was equal to 0.81.
According to yield indicators, a number of indices were calculated and analyzed, which characterize the resistance of samples to drought. The value of the drought susceptibility index (DSI) ranged from 0.87 to 1.09, with an average value of 1.00. The drought tolerance index (TOL) was 1.61–2.41 with an average value of 2.11. The average yield (MP) was in the range of 2.34–3.15 t/ha and had an average value of 2.85 t/ha. The yield stability index (YSI) value varied from 0.12 to 0.30 with an average value of 0.19. The yield index under stress conditions (YI) was 64.6–143.3%, with an average value of 98.9%. The stress yield index (YI) ranged from 64.6% to 143.3%, with an average value of 98.9%. The geometric mean (or proportional mean) yield (GMP) of the studied samples ranged from 0.92 t/ha to 1.38 t/ha, with a median value of 1.11 t/ha.
According to each index, the researched soybean samples were differentiated and drought-resistant breeding material was selected.
Conclusions. According to most indices: stress susceptibility (DSI), drought tolerance (TOL), crop stability (YSI), productivity (YI), stress tolerance (STI) and geometric mean yield (GMP) number CVT 23-18 (3836 / 76-130 selection). According to five indices: stress susceptibility (DSI), yield stability (YSI), yield (YI), stress tolerance (STI) and geometric mean yield (GMP) number CVT 16-18 (Volgohradka / Mriya) stood out. Number CVT 49-18 (Kharkivska 56 / Ilsoy) stood out according to the indicators of four indices: average yield (MR), yield (YI), stress tolerance (STI) and geometric mean yield (GMP). According to three indices, it is identified as drought-resistant number CVT 22-18 (selection №14) – according to indices of stress susceptibility (DSI), drought tolerance (TOL) and yield stability (YSI); numbers CVT 36-18 (Kharkivska zernokormova / Yug 30) and CVT 24-18 (Kharkivska 62 / Hodson) – according to indices of yield (YI), stress tolerance (STI) and geometric mean yield (GMP). Selection number CVT 28-18 (4305-04) stood out according to stress tolerance index (TOL) and average yield level (MR). Number 29-18 (Narrow-leaved / mutant 82-205) stood out according to the stress tolerance index (TOL) and the level of average yield (MR). Numbers CVT 50-18 (selection from Pasteter Schwarus) and CVT 37-18 (Success / Dream) were distinguished by indices of susceptibility to stress (DSI) and yield stability (YSI). According to the level of average yield (MR), number CVT 20-18 (Kharkivska 35 / Kyivska 27) and Podyaka variety stood out. The Roksolana variety stood out according to the stress tolerance index (TOL). Selected genotypes of soybeans with a high level of resistance to abiotic stress are recommended for use in crop breeding for high drought resistance.
References
1. Korniychuk O.V., Antipova L.K., Manushkina T.M. Analysis of the state of production of fodder crops in the south of Ukraine. Kormy i Kormovyrobnytstvo. 2021; 91: 20–32. DOI: https://doi.org/10/310731/kormovyrobnytstvo202191-02.
2. Cprinchuk N.A., Voronetska I.S., Korniychuk O.O., Petrychenko I.I. Climate crisis and features of modernization of field fodder production in developed countries of the world. Kormy i Kormovyrobnytstvo. 2022; 94: 105–115. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32702/2306-6792.2021.17.21.
3. Babich-Poberezhna A.A., Luzhetska L.S. Economic aspects of the formation of fodder high-protein plant resources in Ukraine. Kormy i Kormovyrobnytstvo. 2006; 58: 184–187.
4. Ivanyuk S.V., Vilgota M.V., Zharkova O.Yu. The influence of hydrothermal conditions on the formation of soybean productivity in the conditions of the forest-steppe of Ukraine. Kormy i Kormovyrobnytstvo. 2016; 82: 21–28.
5. Lavrynenko Yu.O., Kuzmych V.I., Borovyk V.O. Prospects of soybean production in the world and Ukraine. 2016. Legumes and soybeans for the sustainable development of agricultural production in Ukraine: Mater. international conference, August 11–12, 2016. Vinnytsia, 2016. P. 25–26.
6. Petrychenko V.F., Korniychuk O.V., Zadorozhna I.S. Formation and development of fodder production in Ukraine. Visnik agrarnoi nauki. 2018; 11: 54–62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31073/agrovisnyk201811-08.
7. Tymchenko V.N., Pylypchenko A.V. The state and prospects for the development of soybean production in Ukraine. Kormy i kormovyrobnytstvo. 2012; 71: 27–33.
8. Ogurtsov Ye.M., Mikheev V.G., Belinskyi Yu.V., Klymenko I.V. Adaptive soybean cultivation technology in the Eastern Forest Steppe of Ukraine. Ed. M.A. Bobro Kharkiv, 2016. 272 p.
9. Babych A.O., Babych-Poberezhna A.A. Soybean breeding and production in Ukraine. Vinnytsia, 2008. 215 p.
10. Romaschenko M.I., Sobko O.O., Savchuk D.P., Kulbida M.I. About some objectives of agricultural science in view of climatic changes. Scientific report-information. K., 2003. 46 p.
11. Sichkar V.I., Ganzhelo O.I., Lavrova G.D. Ways to increase soybean yields on insufficient moisture supply. Kormy i Kormovyrobnytstvo. 2008; 62: 163–173.
12. Sichkar V.I. Current state and prospects of grain legume growing on our planet. 2016: Grain Legumes and Soybeans for the Sustainable Development of Agrarian Production in Ukraine: Abstracts of International Conference. August 11–12, 2016. Vinnytsia, 2016:14–15.
13. Petrychenko V.F. Scientific foundations of sustainable soybean planting in Ukraine. Kormy i Kormovyrobnytstvo. 2011; 69: 3–10.
14. Bouslama M., Schapaugh W.T. Stress tolerance in soybean. Part 1: evaluation of three screening techniques for heat and drought tolerance. Crop Science. 1984; 29(5): 897–912. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1984.0011183X002400050026x.
15. Leshchenko A.K. Soybean crop. K.: Naukova Dumka, 1978. 236 p.
16. Zelentsov S.V., Moshnenko Ye.V. Breeding and genetic adaptation of soybeans to the developing seasonal aridization of the European south of Russia. Kormy i Kormovyrobnytstvo. 2013; 76: 8–15.
17. Ramiers-Valleo P., Kelly J. D. Traits related to drounght resistance in common bean. Euphytica. 1998; 99 (2): 127–136. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1018353200015.
18. Richards R.A., Rebetzke G.J., Condor A.G., Herwaarder A.F. Breeding opportunities for increasing the efficiency of water use and crop yield in temperate cereals. Crop Science. 2002; 42 (1): 111–121. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2002.1110
19. Molecular approaches for the genetic improvement of cereals for stable production in water-limited environments. A Strategic Planning Wopkshop, Editors Ribait J.M. and Poland D. El Batan, Mexico, 21–25 June. Mexico D. F.: CIMMYT. 1999. 180 p.
20. Orliuk A.P., Honcharova K.V. Problem of combining high performance and environmental stability of winter wheat varieties. Factors of Experimental Evolution of Organisms: Collection of scientific papers. K.: Ahrarna Nauka. 2003. P. 180–187.
21. Leshchenko A.K., Sichkar V.I., Mikhaylov V.G., Maryushkin V.F. Soybean (genetics, breeding, seed production). K.: Naukova Dumka, 1987. 256 p.
22. Sichkar V.I. State and prospects of grain legume breeding. Zbornik Nauchnykh Trudov SGI. 2002; 3 (43): 92–103.
23. Dyakov A.B., Trunova M.V., Vasilyeva T.A. Evaluation of yield and drought resistance potentials in soybean varieties. Maslichnyye Kultury. Scientific and technical bulletin of Pustovoit All-Russian Research Institute of Oil Crops. 2009; 2 (141): 78–86.
24. Fischer R.A., Maurer R. Drought resistance in spring wheat cultivars. 1. Grain yield responses. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research. 1978; 29 (5): 897–912. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1071/AR9780897.
25. Allandou M. Evaluation of resistance to drought in tritipirum lines using drought tolerance indices. International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences. 2012; 3 (3): 461–465. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:131443394
26. Darabad, G.R. Evaluating the best indicators and identifying the most tolerant varieties to draught in potato varieties. International Journal of Biosciences. 2014; 4: 282–288. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12692/ijb%2F4.8.189-195.
27. Dharanguttikar V.M., Bharud R.W., Borkar V.H. Physiological responses of chickpea genotypes for drought tolerance under induced moisture stress. International Jornal of Scientific and Research Publications. 2015; 5 (9): 1–11.
28. Sabaghnia N., Janmohammadi M. Evaluation of selection indices for drought tolerance in some chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes. Acta Technologica Agriculturae. 2014;. 1: 6–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/ata-2014-0002.
29. Safavi S.M., Safavi А.S., Safavi S.А. Evaluation of drought tolerance in sunflower (Helianthus annus L.) under non stress and drought stress conditions. Journal of Biodivercity and Environmental Sciences. 2015; 5 (1): 580–586.
30. Taledi R., Fayaz F., Naji A. M. Effective selection criteria for assessing drought tolerance in durum wheat (Triticum durum Desf.). General and Plant Physiology. 2009; 35 (1–2): 64–74.
31. Turner N.C. Wright G.C. Siddigue K.H. M. Adaptation of grain legumes (pulses) to water-limited environments. Advances in Agronomy. 2001; 71: 193–231. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2113(01)71015-2.
32. Rosielle A.A., Hamblin J. Theoretical aspects of selection for yield in stress and non-stress environments. Crop Science. 1981; 21: 943–946. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1981.0011183X002100060033x.
33. Yucel D., Mart D. Drought tolerance in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes. Turkish Journal of Agricultural and Natural Sciences. 2014; 1: 1299–1303.
34. Gavuzzi P., Rizza F., Palumbo M., Campanile R.G., Rissiardi G.L., Borgh B. Evaluation of field and laboratory predictors of drought and heat tolerance in winter cereals. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 1997; 77 (4): 523–531. DOI: http://doi.org/10.4141/P96-130.
35. Methods of state variety trials of agricultural crops. K., 2000. Issue 1. 100 p.
36. Methods of state variety trials of agricultural crops. K., 2001. Issue 2. 68 p.
37. Dospekhov B. A. Methods of field experience. M: Kolos, 1985. 423 p.
