Fourteen lentil genotypes were tested for grain yield in Southeastern Anatolia ecological conditions, over our consecutive years to classify these cultivars for yield stability. Seed yield ranged from 1.903 t/ha to 1.367 t/ha. RM76, RM601 and RM152 showed regression coeffi cient above 1.00, but RM76 among these lines was consistently produced the highest yields. The unstable cultivars, RM601 and RM152 had the highest S2 values and high C.V. for grain yield

B. TUBA BİÇER

DOĞAN ŞAKAR

B TUBA BİÇER

Directory of Open Access Journals

ORIGINAL PAPER439 Volume 7 (2006) No. 3 (439-444)STABILITY PARAMETERS IN LENTILB. TUBA BİÇER, DOĞAN ŞAKARDepartment of Field Crops, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Dicle, Diyarbakir.21280-TurkeyManuscript received: May 2, 2006; Reviewed: December 1, 2006; Accepted for publication: December 5, 2006ABSTRACTFourteen lentil genotypes were tested for grain yield in Southeastern Anatolia ecological conditions, over our consecutive years to classify these cultivars for yield stability. Seed yield ranged from 1.903 t/ha to 1.367 t/ha. RM76, RM601 and RM152 showed regression coefﬁ  cient above 1.00, but RM76 among these lines was consistently produced the highest yields. The unstable cultivars, RM601 and RM152 had the highest S2 values and high C.V. for grain yield. Keywords: Lentil, Lens culinaris Medik., Yield, Stability Parameters440 Journal of Central European Agriculture Vol 7 (2006) No 3B. TUBA BIÇER, DOGAN ŞAKARINTRODUCTIONRed  lentil  (winter  grown  lentils  with  red  cotyledon colour) is important grain legume crop of Southeastern Anatolia of Turkey, and it is widely grown in rotation with  winter  cereals.  However,  its  production  exhibits ﬂ  uctuation  mainly  due  to  cultivation  of  low  yielding and  environment  sensitive  genotypes.  A  genotype  is considered to be adaptive or stable one if it has a high mean yield but a low degree of ﬂ  uctuation in yielding ability  when  grown  over  diverse  environments  [1]. Therefore, emphasis should be put on the identiﬁ  cation of  genotypes,  which  could  perform  better  irrespective of small changes in environment. Several methods can be used for measuring crop yield stability. Among them, the most popular and widely used is the linear regression analysis as proposed by Eberhart and Russell [3]. Thus, this  study  was  aimed  on  grain  yield  of  14  promising lentil lines to ﬁ  nd out ones with comparatively better and consistent grain yield in differential growing conditions.MATERIALS AND METHODS  This  study  was  carried  out  during  2002,  2003,  2004 and  2005  years  in  Southeastern  Anatolia  of  Turkey. The experimental location has mild climate with rainy winters and dry hot summers. The soil were clay loam with a pH of 7.9 and 2.03% organic matter. Climatic data related to experimental area are summarized in Table 1. According to Table 1, the weather from February to May over four years was rainy, and the rainfall, particularly in 2003 and 2004 growing seasons, was more than the long-term average. Overall rainfall during the entire growing season (to 95% physiological maturity) was about 300 mm for each year.The  experimental  material  consisted  of  eleven  lentil genotypes (Regional Material) isolated from Southeastern Anatolia lentil populations, and three standard cultivars (ST) which were previously breed for the region and used as check varieties. Experimental design was randomized complete block with four replications. Seeds were sown by seed drill 6 row plots of 4 m length, with 20 cm between the rows and 2.5 cm between plants. Sowings were performed Nov.14, 2001, Jan.5, 2002, Nov.21, 2003, and Dec.5, 2004. Standard agro-technique measures were used during lentil grows.The  data  used  were  obtained  from  one  location  and four years. The variance analysis combined over four environments [10]. Location effects were considered as random variables while the genotype effects were treated as ﬁ  xed. Different stability parameters were used. The method of Eberhart and Russell [3] employs the regression Table 1 Precipitation (mm), Temperature (0C) and Humidity (%) distribution during crop  seasons at Diyarbakir, Turkey Months Years Jan.  Feb.  March  April  May  June  Nov.  Dec. Long  P. 74.6  68.4  66.2  73.5  40.8  7.20  54.6  71.4 term T. 1.60  3.60  8.30  13.9  19.3  25.9  9.80  4.10 average  H. 77.0  73.0  66.0  63.0  56.0  36.0  68.0  77.0 2001  P.  14.9  72.4  126.1  54.0  86.9  0.00  52.3  131.7   T.  4.00  5.00  11.4  14.3  16.7  26.7  7.00  5.10   H.  68.0  66.0  69.0  64.0  60.1  26.0  61.0  82.0 2002  P.  31.2  46.1  73.0  65.0  34.9  1.30  36.6  74.1   T.  0.70  5.60  9.40  12.2  17.9  26.3  10.2  11.3   H.  77.0  58.0  64.0  69.4  48.8  29.7  55.3  71.0 2003  P.  68.4  151.8  80.7  80.6  54.0  26.9  62.5  87.9   T.  4.00  2.5.0  6.50  13.4  20.4  26.4  8.80  8.70   H.  78.0  75.8  64.5  66.1  45.0  24.5  67.7  76.1 2004  P.  85.1  93.4  9.30  54.9  97.0  16.0  123.1  4.70   T.  3.30  2.70  9.60  12.8  18.0  26.4  8.20  1.40   H.  81.9  79.6  5.40  49.6  54.0  23.3  69.4  59.9 2005  P.  58.7  46.8  58.4  36.8  26.5  -  -  -   T.  2.30  3.00  8.40  14.1  19.6  -  -  -   H.  66.0  61.7  53.3  51.9  -  -  -  - P: Precipitation, T: Temperature, H: Humidity STABILITY PARAMETERS IN LENTIL441 J. Cent. Eur. Agric. (2006) 7:3, 439-444of individual means on the environmental index, which is deﬁ  ned as the mean of all genotypes grown in that environment.  The  regression  coefﬁ  cient  (b)  and  the deviation from the regression (S2d) are the parameters of stability. Signiﬁ  cance of b’s were investigated by t-test. Furthermore, other stability parameters were considered such as ecovalence (Wi), environmental variance (S2), and coefﬁ  cient of variation. Ecovalence (Wi), measures contribution  to  genotype  x  environment  interaction of  each  genotype,  and  was  described  by  Wrick  [11]. Environmental  variance  (S2),  estimate  the  variance  of each genotype over all environments [7]. Coefﬁ  cient of variation (C.V.) was described by Francis and Kannenberg [5]. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONThe variance analysis combined over four environments (years),  and  data  from  variance  analysis  of  stability were given in Table 2. Results of the combined analysis of  variance  for  grain  yield  indicate  that  the  genotype x  year  (G×Y)  interaction  effects  were  statistically signiﬁ  cant (Table 2). This demonstrates the presence of genotype and environmental differences governing the expression of this trait and the signiﬁ  cant contribution of G×Y interactions in inﬂ  uencing genotype performance. Partitioning  of  interaction  effects  using  Eberhart  and Russell’s  [3]  regeneration  method  showed  that  year (Linear) and G×Y (Linear) effects were non signiﬁ  cant for  yield.  However,  the  deviation  from  the  regression (S2d)  was  signiﬁ  cant.  Variance  of  deviation  from  the regression is more important than genotype x environment interaction in stability [9]. Table 2 Pooled analysis of variance for  grain yield in lentil Source of Variance  DF  MS Genotype   13  0.18196** Year   3  122.4694** Year x Genotype  39  1.1917** Genotype (linear)  13  0.1011 nsYear+(y x g) (linear)  42  0.24274 Year (linear)  1  7.225515 Year x Genotype (linear)  13  0.02113 nsPooled Deviations  28  13.47554* Error  156  0.635 *, ** Significantly different at p = 0.05 and p = 0.01 levels respectivelyThe  lentil  genotypes  evaluated  revealed  by  different rankings  at  the  different  years.  This  showed  that  the performance of the genotypes and their superiority was dependent on environment. The highest yield was given by RM76 with mean over years of 1.903 t/ha followed by ST1 1.768 t/ha (Table 3). The lowest yield was observed on  RM601  (1.367  t/ha).  ST2  as  standard  variety  was produced mean over years grain yield of 1.529 t/ha. The stability results were generally argued on the basis of seed yield ranking and stability parameters. According Table 3 Ranking of lentil genotypes at four years Genotypes  2002  2003  2004  2005 ST1  10  8  6  3 RM76  1  3  2  1 RM498  12  11  7  13 ST2  14  4  13  6 RM711  11  5  12  11 RM479  7  1  11  2 RM500  3  2  1  14 RM760  9  7  9  8 RM34  2  10  14  5 RM152  5  12  5  9 ST3  4  6  4  4 RM601  13  14  3  12 RM499  6  9  10  7 RM201  8  13  8  10 CV  26  19  14  16. Environment Mean  1,713  1,021  2,005  1,6598 Environment index  0,113  -0,579  0,405  0,0599 442 Journal of Central European Agriculture Vol 7 (2006) No 3B. TUBA BIÇER, DOGAN ŞAKARto the techniques followed by Finlay and Wilkinson [4], who deﬁ  ned varieties with general adaptability as those with average stability (bi = 1.0) when associated with high mean yield over tested environment. Eberhart and Russell [3] proposed that an ideal population of genotype is one which has the highest yield over a broad range of environments, a regression coefﬁ  cient (b) value of 1.0 and deviation mean square of zero.Based on result of the regression analysis, the genotypes   RM201, ST3 and RM760 were classiﬁ  ed as highly stable over environments because their regression coefﬁ  cient was close to unity (b=1) (Table 4). According to the ranking and mean yield the genotypes RM201and ST3 were all poorly adapted across the test environments,  but  RM760  had  better  yield  and  thus had  better  general  adaptability  and  had  resistance  to ﬂ  uctuating environmental conditions.The  highest  yielder,  RM76  had  higher  regression coefﬁ  cient  than  the  other  genotype.  This  might  come from higher yield value than other genotypes. The genotypes with coefﬁ  cients below 1, giving average stability,  resisting  ﬂ  uctuations  with  good  yields  were ST1 and RM711. The genotypes RM479 and RM34 had regression coefﬁ  cients signiﬁ  cantly less than 1, which indicates their below average adaptability and lack of response to environmental changes for grain yield, with relatively small ﬂ  uctuation in performance between poor and good environments. The deviation column in Table 4 showed the genotypes ST1 and RM711 to be the most stable. Taking the ranking of yield into consideration, RM711 would be the most stable  with  RM760  second  best  if  general  stability  is important. ST2 had good S2di value, but had a small bi value. These results indicated that some genotypes were more sensitive to the small changes in environment while others were more stable. These ﬁ  ndings agree with other researchers [2, 4, and 6].In  addition  to  above  mentioned  stability  parameters, genotypes  indicating  low  environmental  variances (S2)  and  low  coefﬁ  cients  of  variation  (CV)  are  also considered stable [7]. Low CV values and environmental variances  were  shown  by  ST2,  RM479,  RM711  and ST1, conﬁ  rming their high stability. In addition, it was indicated that grain yield of these genotypes were higher than that of mean. The unstable cultivars, RM601 and RM152 had the highest S2 values and high C.V. for grain yield. Wricke’s [11] ecovalence is an alternative method that is  frequently  used  to  determine  stability  of  genotypes based on the G x E interaction effects. It indicates the contribution of each genotype to the G x E interaction. The cultivars with the lowest ecovalence contributed the least to the G x E interaction and are therefore more stable. The genotypes like ST1 (0.009) and RM760 (0.034) were showed good stability and correlation to the mean yield. The least stable RM601 (0.549) showed no similarity to mean yield ranking. RM711 (0.023) and ST2 (0.070) had the best stability but had poor yield ranking and were therefore not well adapted to the test environments.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWe would like to thank volunteer workers and students at Field Crops department for their help.Table 4 Estimates of stability parameters for grain yield in lentil Gen. Rank on  yield Yield  kg/ha bRank S2d Rank  S2Rank  CVWiRank RM76 1 1.903** 1.224 10 0.1372* 8 0.3038 11 28.9 0.163 7 ST1 2 1.768**  0.904 4 0.0049 1 0.1424 4 21.3 0.009 1 RM500 3 1.745 1.137 7 0.3162** 11 0.3280 12 32.8 0.326 10 RM479 4 1.737 0.708 13 0.0677 6 0.1088 2 18.9 0.111 5 RM152 5 1.697 1.342 14 0.0778 7 0.3358 13 34.1 0.138 6 RM760 6 1.633 1.035 3 0.0342 4 0.1956 5 27.0 0.034 3 RM34 7 1.614 0.785 9 0.5558** 14 0.2913 9 33.4 0.579** 14 RM711 8 1.563 0.880 6 0.0165 2 0.1388 3 23.8 0.023 2 ST2 9 1.529 0.712 12 0.0272 3 0.0962 1 20.2 0.070 4 RM498 10 1.528 1.102 5 0.0447 5 0.2240 7 30.9 0.501 12 ST3 11 1.525 1.033 2 0.3389** 12 0.2965 10 35.7 0.339 11 RM499 12 1.419** 0.856 8 0.2739** 9 0.2175 6 32.8 0.284 8 RM201 13 1.369** 1.007 1 0.2893** 10 0.2708 8 38.0 0.289 9 RM601 14 1.367** 1.273 11 0.5105** 13 0.4488 14 49.0 0.549** 13 Mean 1.599          *, ** Significantly different at p = 0.05 and p = 0.01 levels respectivelySTABILITY PARAMETERS IN LENTIL443 J. Cent. Eur. Agric. (2006) 7:3, 439-444REFERENCES[1] Arshad M., Bakhsh A., Haqqani A.M., Bashir M., Genotype-Environment  interaction  for  Grain  Yield  in Chickpea (Cicer arietınum L.) Pak. J. Bot. (2003) 35(2): 181-186. [2] Bakhsh, A., Ghafoor A., Zubair M., Iqbal S.M., Genotype  environment  interaction  for  grain  yield  in lentil, Pak. J. Agri. Res. (1991)12:102-105.[3] Eberhart S.A., Russel W.A., Stability parameters for comparing varieties, Crop Sci. (1966) 6: 36-40. [4]  Finlay  K.W.,  Wilkinson  G.N.,  The  analysis  of adaptation in a plant breeding programme, Aust. J. Agri. Res. (1993) 14: 742-754.[5]  Francis T.R.,  Kannenberg  L.W., Yield  stability studies in short-season maize. 1. A descriptive method for grouping genotypes, Can. J. Plant Sci. (1978) 58:1029-1034. [6] Kakar K. M., Kakar S. Z., Shawani M. I., Varietal dynamics  of  yield  stability  in  wheat,  On-line  J.  of Biological Sci. (2003) 3 (2): 137-140.[7] Lin C.S., Binns M.R., Lefkovitch L.P., Stability Analysis: where do we stand?, Crop Sci. (1986) 26: 894-900. [8] Min T. D., Saleh G.B.,  Phenotypic stability of selected tropical maize genotypes at four locations, A.J. Plant Sci. (2003) 2 (10): 743-747.[9] Singh S.P., Mehra R.B., Adaptability studies in bengal  gram  (Cicer  arietinum  L.).  Tropical  Legume Bulletin. (1980) 19:51-54.[10]  Steel  R.G.D.,  Torrie  J.H.,  Principles  and Procedures of Statistics, Second Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company Inc., New York, 1980. p: 633. [11] Wrick, G. On a method of understanding the biological diversity in ﬁ  eld research. Z. Pﬂ  anzenzucht, (1962) 47:92-96. 

Journal of Central European Agriculture

STABILITY PARAMETERS IN LENTIL

Hrčak - Portal of scientific journals of Croatia

ORIGINAL PAPER439Volume 7 (2006) No. 3 (439-444)STABILITY PARAMETERS IN LENTILB. TUBA BİÇER, DOĞAN ŞAKARDepartment of Field Crops, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Dicle, Diyarbakir.21280-TurkeyManuscript received: May 2, 2006; Reviewed: December 1, 2006; Accepted for publication: December 5, 2006ABSTRACTFourteen lentil genotypes were tested for grain yield in Southeastern Anatolia ecological conditions, over our consecutive years to classify these cultivars for yield stability. Seed yield ranged from 1.903 t/ha to 1.367 t/ha. RM76, RM601 and RM152 showed regression coefﬁ cient above 1.00, but RM76 among these lines was consistently produced the highest yields. The unstable cultivars, RM601 and RM152 had the highest S2 values and high C.V. for grain yield. Keywords: Lentil, Lens culinaris Medik., Yield, Stability Parameters440 Journal of Central European Agriculture Vol 7 (2006) No 3B. TUBA BIÇER, DOGAN ŞAKARINTRODUCTIONRed lentil (winter grown lentils with red cotyledon colour) is important grain legume crop of Southeastern Anatolia of Turkey, and it is widely grown in rotation with winter cereals. However, its production exhibits ﬂ uctuation mainly due to cultivation of low yielding and environment sensitive genotypes. A genotype is considered to be adaptive or stable one if it has a high mean yield but a low degree of ﬂ uctuation in yielding ability when grown over diverse environments [1]. Therefore, emphasis should be put on the identiﬁ cation of genotypes, which could perform better irrespective of small changes in environment. Several methods can be used for measuring crop yield stability. Among them, the most popular and widely used is the linear regression analysis as proposed by Eberhart and Russell [3]. Thus, this study was aimed on grain yield of 14 promising lentil lines to ﬁ nd out ones with comparatively better and consistent grain yield in differential growing conditions.MATERIALS AND METHODS  This study was carried out during 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 years in Southeastern Anatolia of Turkey. The experimental location has mild climate with rainy winters and dry hot summers. The soil were clay loam with a pH of 7.9 and 2.03% organic matter. Climatic data related to experimental area are summarized in Table 1. According to Table 1, the weather from February to May over four years was rainy, and the rainfall, particularly in 2003 and 2004 growing seasons, was more than the long-term average. Overall rainfall during the entire growing season (to 95% physiological maturity) was about 300 mm for each year.The experimental material consisted of eleven lentil genotypes (Regional Material) isolated from Southeastern Anatolia lentil populations, and three standard cultivars (ST) which were previously breed for the region and used as check varieties. Experimental design was randomized complete block with four replications. Seeds were sown by seed drill 6 row plots of 4 m length, with 20 cm between the rows and 2.5 cm between plants. Sowings were performed Nov.14, 2001, Jan.5, 2002, Nov.21, 2003, and Dec.5, 2004. Standard agro-technique measures were used during lentil grows.The data used were obtained from one location and four years. The variance analysis combined over four environments [10]. Location effects were considered as random variables while the genotype effects were treated as ﬁ xed. Different stability parameters were used. The method of Eberhart and Russell [3] employs the regression Table 1 Precipitation (mm), Temperature (0C) and Humidity (%) distribution during crop  seasons at Diyarbakir, Turkey Months Years Jan. Feb. March April May June Nov. Dec. Long P. 74.6 68.4 66.2 73.5 40.8 7.20 54.6 71.4 term T. 1.60 3.60 8.30 13.9 19.3 25.9 9.80 4.10 average H. 77.0 73.0 66.0 63.0 56.0 36.0 68.0 77.0 2001 P. 14.9 72.4 126.1 54.0 86.9 0.00 52.3 131.7  T. 4.00 5.00 11.4 14.3 16.7 26.7 7.00 5.10  H. 68.0 66.0 69.0 64.0 60.1 26.0 61.0 82.0 2002 P. 31.2 46.1 73.0 65.0 34.9 1.30 36.6 74.1  T. 0.70 5.60 9.40 12.2 17.9 26.3 10.2 11.3  H. 77.0 58.0 64.0 69.4 48.8 29.7 55.3 71.0 2003 P. 68.4 151.8 80.7 80.6 54.0 26.9 62.5 87.9  T. 4.00 2.5.0 6.50 13.4 20.4 26.4 8.80 8.70  H. 78.0 75.8 64.5 66.1 45.0 24.5 67.7 76.1 2004 P. 85.1 93.4 9.30 54.9 97.0 16.0 123.1 4.70  T. 3.30 2.70 9.60 12.8 18.0 26.4 8.20 1.40  H. 81.9 79.6 5.40 49.6 54.0 23.3 69.4 59.9 2005 P. 58.7 46.8 58.4 36.8 26.5 - - -  T. 2.30 3.00 8.40 14.1 19.6 - - -  H. 66.0 61.7 53.3 51.9 - - - - P: Precipitation, T: Temperature, H: Humidity STABILITY PARAMETERS IN LENTIL441J. Cent. Eur. Agric. (2006) 7:3, 439-444of individual means on the environmental index, which is deﬁ ned as the mean of all genotypes grown in that environment. The regression coefﬁ cient (b) and the deviation from the regression (S2d) are the parameters of stability. Signiﬁ cance of b’s were investigated by t-test. Furthermore, other stability parameters were considered such as ecovalence (Wi), environmental variance (S2), and coefﬁ cient of variation. Ecovalence (Wi), measures contribution to genotype x environment interaction of each genotype, and was described by Wrick [11]. Environmental variance (S2), estimate the variance of each genotype over all environments [7]. Coefﬁ cient of variation (C.V.) was described by Francis and Kannenberg [5]. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONThe variance analysis combined over four environments (years), and data from variance analysis of stability were given in Table 2. Results of the combined analysis of variance for grain yield indicate that the genotype x year (G×Y) interaction effects were statistically signiﬁ cant (Table 2). This demonstrates the presence of genotype and environmental differences governing the expression of this trait and the signiﬁ cant contribution of G×Y interactions in inﬂ uencing genotype performance. Partitioning of interaction effects using Eberhart and Russell’s [3] regeneration method showed that year (Linear) and G×Y (Linear) effects were non signiﬁ cant for yield. However, the deviation from the regression (S2d) was signiﬁ cant. Variance of deviation from the regression is more important than genotype x environment interaction in stability [9]. Table 2 Pooled analysis of variance for  grain yield in lentil Source of Variance DF MS Genotype  13 0.18196** Year  3 122.4694** Year x Genotype 39 1.1917** Genotype (linear) 13 0.1011 nsYear+(y x g) (linear) 42 0.24274 Year (linear) 1 7.225515 Year x Genotype (linear) 13 0.02113 nsPooled Deviations 28 13.47554* Error 156 0.635 *, ** Significantly different at p = 0.05 and p = 0.01 levels respectivelyThe lentil genotypes evaluated revealed by different rankings at the different years. This showed that the performance of the genotypes and their superiority was dependent on environment. The highest yield was given by RM76 with mean over years of 1.903 t/ha followed by ST1 1.768 t/ha (Table 3). The lowest yield was observed on RM601 (1.367 t/ha). ST2 as standard variety was produced mean over years grain yield of 1.529 t/ha. The stability results were generally argued on the basis of seed yield ranking and stability parameters. According Table 3 Ranking of lentil genotypes at four years Genotypes 2002 2003 2004 2005 ST1 10 8 6 3 RM76 1 3 2 1 RM498 12 11 7 13 ST2 14 4 13 6 RM711 11 5 12 11 RM479 7 1 11 2 RM500 3 2 1 14 RM760 9 7 9 8 RM34 2 10 14 5 RM152 5 12 5 9 ST3 4 6 4 4 RM601 13 14 3 12 RM499 6 9 10 7 RM201 8 13 8 10 CV 26 19 14 16. Environment Mean 1,713 1,021 2,005 1,6598 Environment index 0,113 -0,579 0,405 0,0599 442 Journal of Central European Agriculture Vol 7 (2006) No 3B. TUBA BIÇER, DOGAN ŞAKARto the techniques followed by Finlay and Wilkinson [4], who deﬁ ned varieties with general adaptability as those with average stability (bi = 1.0) when associated with high mean yield over tested environment. Eberhart and Russell [3] proposed that an ideal population of genotype is one which has the highest yield over a broad range of environments, a regression coefﬁ cient (b) value of 1.0 and deviation mean square of zero.Based on result of the regression analysis, the genotypes RM201, ST3 and RM760 were classiﬁ ed as highly stable over environments because their regression coefﬁ cient was close to unity (b=1) (Table 4). According to the ranking and mean yield the genotypes RM201and ST3 were all poorly adapted across the test environments, but RM760 had better yield and thus had better general adaptability and had resistance to ﬂ uctuating environmental conditions.The highest yielder, RM76 had higher regression coefﬁ cient than the other genotype. This might come from higher yield value than other genotypes. The genotypes with coefﬁ cients below 1, giving average stability, resisting ﬂ uctuations with good yields were ST1 and RM711. The genotypes RM479 and RM34 had regression coefﬁ cients signiﬁ cantly less than 1, which indicates their below average adaptability and lack of response to environmental changes for grain yield, with relatively small ﬂ uctuation in performance between poor and good environments. The deviation column in Table 4 showed the genotypes ST1 and RM711 to be the most stable. Taking the ranking of yield into consideration, RM711 would be the most stable with RM760 second best if general stability is important. ST2 had good S2di value, but had a small bi value. These results indicated that some genotypes were more sensitive to the small changes in environment while others were more stable. These ﬁ ndings agree with other researchers [2, 4, and 6].In addition to above mentioned stability parameters, genotypes indicating low environmental variances (S2) and low coefﬁ cients of variation (CV) are also considered stable [7]. Low CV values and environmental variances were shown by ST2, RM479, RM711 and ST1, conﬁ rming their high stability. In addition, it was indicated that grain yield of these genotypes were higher than that of mean. The unstable cultivars, RM601 and RM152 had the highest S2 values and high C.V. for grain yield. Wricke’s [11] ecovalence is an alternative method that is frequently used to determine stability of genotypes based on the G x E interaction effects. It indicates the contribution of each genotype to the G x E interaction. The cultivars with the lowest ecovalence contributed the least to the G x E interaction and are therefore more stable. The genotypes like ST1 (0.009) and RM760 (0.034) were showed good stability and correlation to the mean yield. The least stable RM601 (0.549) showed no similarity to mean yield ranking. RM711 (0.023) and ST2 (0.070) had the best stability but had poor yield ranking and were therefore not well adapted to the test environments.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWe would like to thank volunteer workers and students at Field Crops department for their help.Table 4 Estimates of stability parameters for grain yield in lentil Gen. Rank on  yield Yield  kg/ha bRank S2d Rank  S2Rank  CVWiRank RM76 1 1.903** 1.224 10 0.1372* 8 0.3038 11 28.9 0.163 7 ST1 2 1.768**  0.904 4 0.0049 1 0.1424 4 21.3 0.009 1 RM500 3 1.745 1.137 7 0.3162** 11 0.3280 12 32.8 0.326 10 RM479 4 1.737 0.708 13 0.0677 6 0.1088 2 18.9 0.111 5 RM152 5 1.697 1.342 14 0.0778 7 0.3358 13 34.1 0.138 6 RM760 6 1.633 1.035 3 0.0342 4 0.1956 5 27.0 0.034 3 RM34 7 1.614 0.785 9 0.5558** 14 0.2913 9 33.4 0.579** 14 RM711 8 1.563 0.880 6 0.0165 2 0.1388 3 23.8 0.023 2 ST2 9 1.529 0.712 12 0.0272 3 0.0962 1 20.2 0.070 4 RM498 10 1.528 1.102 5 0.0447 5 0.2240 7 30.9 0.501 12 ST3 11 1.525 1.033 2 0.3389** 12 0.2965 10 35.7 0.339 11 RM499 12 1.419** 0.856 8 0.2739** 9 0.2175 6 32.8 0.284 8 RM201 13 1.369** 1.007 1 0.2893** 10 0.2708 8 38.0 0.289 9 RM601 14 1.367** 1.273 11 0.5105** 13 0.4488 14 49.0 0.549** 13 Mean 1.599          *, ** Significantly different at p = 0.05 and p = 0.01 levels respectivelySTABILITY PARAMETERS IN LENTIL443J. Cent. Eur. Agric. (2006) 7:3, 439-444REFERENCES[1] Arshad M., Bakhsh A., Haqqani A.M., Bashir M., Genotype-Environment interaction for Grain Yield in Chickpea (Cicer arietınum L.) Pak. J. Bot. (2003) 35(2): 181-186. [2] Bakhsh, A., Ghafoor A., Zubair M., Iqbal S.M., Genotype environment interaction for grain yield in lentil, Pak. J. Agri. Res. (1991)12:102-105.[3] Eberhart S.A., Russel W.A., Stability parameters for comparing varieties, Crop Sci. (1966) 6: 36-40. [4] Finlay K.W., Wilkinson G.N., The analysis of adaptation in a plant breeding programme, Aust. J. Agri. Res. (1993) 14: 742-754.[5] Francis T.R., Kannenberg L.W., Yield stability studies in short-season maize. 1. A descriptive method for grouping genotypes, Can. J. Plant Sci. (1978) 58:1029-1034. [6] Kakar K. M., Kakar S. Z., Shawani M. I., Varietal dynamics of yield stability in wheat, On-line J. of Biological Sci. (2003) 3 (2): 137-140.[7] Lin C.S., Binns M.R., Lefkovitch L.P., Stability Analysis: where do we stand?, Crop Sci. (1986) 26: 894-900. [8] Min T. D., Saleh G.B.,  Phenotypic stability of selected tropical maize genotypes at four locations, A.J. Plant Sci. (2003) 2 (10): 743-747.[9] Singh S.P., Mehra R.B., Adaptability studies in bengal gram (Cicer arietinum L.). Tropical Legume Bulletin. (1980) 19:51-54.[10] Steel R.G.D., Torrie J.H., Principles and Procedures of Statistics, Second Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company Inc., New York, 1980. p: 633. [11] Wrick, G. On a method of understanding the biological diversity in ﬁ eld research. Z. Pﬂ anzenzucht, (1962) 47:92-96. 

STABILITY PARAMETERS IN LENTIL

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Directory of Open Access Journals

Hrčak - Portal of scientific journals of Croatia