Biodiversity of drought resistance and indirect selection in safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) genotypes

Paper Details

Research Paper 01/06/2015
Views (617)
current_issue_feature_image
publication_file

Biodiversity of drought resistance and indirect selection in safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) genotypes

Leila Fahmideh, Hajir Beheshtizadeh, Ahmad Reza Golparvar, Saeed Salehi
J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 6(6), 407-410, June 2015.
Copyright Statement: Copyright 2015; The Author(s).
License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Abstract

Determination of the biodiversity, drought resistance indices and identify the resistant genotypes, were achieved using ten spring safflower cultivars. The cultivars were sown at drought and non-drought stress conditions in the layout randomized completely block design with three replications during 2013-2014 farming season. Assessment of simple correlation coefficients among drought resistance indices and seed yield of cultivars showed that geometric mean of productivity (GMP) and stress tolerance index (STI) enable to identify cultivars having a high potential yield and tolerance to drought stress and because of that were recognized as the best resistance indices. Biplot graphical display designed that Sterling, Nebrasks10, land race Kuseh and Gila is the most drought resistance cultivars and U.S.10 is the most drought susceptible. Classification of cultivars using biplot analysis revealed that crosses between Sterling, Nebraska10, Landrace Kuseh and Gila with S149 cultivars having maximum genetic distance are qualified to recommendation for genetic improvement of yield potential and drought resistance via selection in spring safflower cultivars.

Abolhasani Kh, Saeidi G. 2006. Evaluation of drought tolerance of safflower lines based on tolerance and sensitivity indices to water stress. Journal of Science and Technology of Agriculture and Natural Resources 10(3), 419-422.

Arslan B. 2010. Assessing of heritability and variance components of yield and some agronomic traits of different safflower cultivars. Asian Journal of Plant Sciences 6(3), 554-557.

Ashkani J, Pakniyat H, Ghotbi V. 2012. Genetic evaluation of several physiological traits for screening of suitable spring safflower genotypes under stress and non-stress irrigation regimes. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences 10(14), 2320-2326.

Farshadfar A, Zamani MR, Motallebi M, Imam-jomeh A. 2001. Selection for drought resistance in Chickpea lines. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 32, 65-77.

Fernandez GC. 1992. Effective selection criteria for assessing plant stress tolerance. In proceeding of a symposium, Taiwan, 13-18 Aug, 257-270 p.

Fischer RA, Maurer R. 1978. Drought resistance in spring wheat cultivars. I, grown yield responses. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 29, 897-912.

Golparvar AR. 2003. Genetic analysis of drought resistance in bread wheat cultivars. Ph.D. Thesis. Islamic Azad University, Science and research branch of Tehran. 286 p.

Kristin AS, Serna RR, Perez FI, Enriquez BC, Gallegos JAA, Vallejo PR, Wassimi N, Kelley JD. 1997. Improving common bean performance under drought stress. Crop Science 37, 43-50.

Passioura JB. 1996. Drought and drought tolerance. Plant Growth Regulation 20, 79-83.

Purdad SS. 2004. Assessment of drought resistance in safflower lines and cultivars in spring planting. Proceedings of the 8th Iranian congress of crop production and plant breeding. 24.

Quarrie SA, Stojanovic J, Pekic S. 1999. Improving drought tolerance in small-grained cereals: A case study, progress and prospects. Plant Growth Regulation 29, 1-21.

Richards RA. 1996. Defining selection criteria to improve yield under drought. Plant Growth Regulation 20, 157-166.

Rosielle AT, Hambelen J. 1981. Theoretical aspects of selection for yield in stress and non-stress environments. Crop Science 21, 943-945.

Related Articles

An investigation of phytochemical constitutents and pharmacological activities of Strobilanthes andamanensis leaf extract

Deepika, V. Ambikapathy, S. Babu, A. Panneerselvam, J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 27(4), 86-94, October 2025.

Assessing public awareness and knowledge of drinking water safety in Carmen, Cagayan De Oro City, Philippines

Ronnie L. Besagas, Romeo M. Del Rosario, Angelo Mark P. Walag, J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 27(4), 80-85, October 2025.

Baseline floristics and above-ground biomass in permanent sample plots across miombo woodlands in different land tenure systems in Hwedza, Zimbabwe

Edwin Nyamugadza, Sara Feresu, Billy Mukamuri, Casey Ryan, Clemence Zimudzi, J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 27(4), 65-79, October 2025.

Adapting to shocks and stressors: Aqua-marine processors approach

Kathlyn A. Mata, J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 27(4), 57-64, October 2025.

Design and development of a sustainable chocolate de-bubbling machine to reduce food waste and support biodiversity-friendly cacao processing

John Adrian B. Bangoy, Michelle P. Soriano, J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 27(4), 41-47, October 2025.

Ecological restoration outcomes in Rwanda’s Rugezi wetland: Biodiversity indices and food web recovery

Concorde Kubwimana, Jean Claude Shimirwa, Pancras Ndokoye, J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 27(4), 32-40, October 2025.

Noise pollution in the urban environment and its impact on human health: A review

Israa Radhi Khudhair, Bushra Hameed Rasheed, Rana Ihssan Hamad, J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 27(4), 28-31, October 2025.