Evaluation of Yield and Yield Components of Different Wheat Promising Genotypes under Irrigation

3

Evaluation of Yield and Yield Components of Different Wheat Promising Genotypes under Irrigation

Water Stresses

F. S. El-Nakhlawy and M. O. Ghandorah Department of Arid Land Agriculture,

Faculty of Meteorology, Environment & Arid Land Agriculture, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah - Saudi Arabia

Abstract. This study was carried out at the Agricultural Research Station, Hada El-Sham, King Abdulaziz University during 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 seasons. Six wheat genotypes were evaluated under three water depletion percentage treatments 50, 75 and 90%. The obtained results showed significant effects for the interaction of genotype x water stress treatments on grain yield/ha, grain weight/plant and spike length. Ucora Rojo, the GN02 wheat genotypes and the GN06 wheat genotype didn’t significantly differ in grain yield under any stress treatments. Ucora Rojo cv. produced the highest grain yield (6.505 t/ha) under the 50% water depletion and didn’t significantly differ from its yield under the 75% under depletion (5.52 t/ha) or the grain yield of the GN06 genotype under the 75% water depletion (5.57 t/ha). Under the 90% water depletion, all studied genotypes produced the lowest significant grain yield/ha comparing with the 50% or 75% water depletion. Grain weight/plant or spike length responded similarly as the grain yield/ha under the effects of the three water depletions. Concerning plant height, no significant differences were shown between the means of plant height under 50%

water depletion (80.42 cm) and under the 75% water depletion (77.61 cm) but significant reduction in plant height was shown under the 90% water depletion (69.57 cm). No. of spikes/plant significantly decreased as water stress increased, 3.71, 3.53 and 3.11 spikes/plant for 50%, 75% and 90% water depletion percentages, respectively. As for genotype plant heights, only the GN06 was the shortest significant plant height (63.43 cm), while GN05 genotype had the significant highest no. of spikes/plant (4.69).

Introduction

In Saudi Arabia, water resources are generally scarce, and agriculture’s share of these resources is declining due to competition from domestic and industrial sectors. Water requirement of a crop is the quantity of water needed for normal growth, development and yield. Water is needed mainly to meet the demands of evaporation (E), transpiration (T) and metabolic need of plant. Peck and Kirkham (1979) stated that the anthesis period of wheat plant is the critical time as affected by water stress. In a study of Brar, et al. (1990), the results showed that the water stress affects all growth stages of wheat plant, and response of plants to water stress depends on stress power, stress time period and growth stage. Ghodsi, et al. (1998) found that irrigation water deficiency caused decreasing yield components of wheat. In Bazil, Deonisio, et al. (2001) stated that wheat varieties differed in the response to irrigation water periods. Also, Hati, et al. (2001) found that wheat grain yield significantly increased as irrigation levels increased. Siddique, et al.

(2000) in Bangladesh found that exposure of plants to drought led to noticeable decreases in leaf water potential and relative water content with a concurrent increase in leaf temperature. Drought stressed plants displayed higher canopy temperature than well-watered plants at both vegetative growth and anthesis growth stages. Oweis, et al. (2000) found a good linear relationship between grain yield and post-anthesis ET with respective mean WUE_g of 1.23 kg m^-3 and 3.07 kg m^-3 after initial grain and dry matter. Schneider and Howell (2001) concluded that reducing irrigation rates to 50% of the full requirement only resulted in 5-14%

yield reduction for spray or LEPA methods. Jiang, et al. (2003) stated that the water requirement of any crop is dependent upon crop factors like variety, growth stage, duration, plant population and growing season, besides of soil factors, climatic factors and crop management practices.

Chaturvedi, et al. (2004) reported that with limited water availability tiller production was reduced but so was their mortality. Grain yield was positively correlated with productive tillers and negatively correlated with the maximum number of tillers produced in wheat under irrigation conditions. Rizza, et al. (2004) reported that within the range of water stress, high yield potential played a preeminent role in the performance of the genotypes. Zarea-Fizabady and Ghodsi (2004) investigated the effects of irrigation intervals of 10, 20 and 30 days on 20 wheat

genotypes and found that grain yield, total plant weight, no. of spikes/plant and 100-grain weight significantly decreased as irrigation interval increased. Collanku and Harrison (2005) showed that wheat plants drought tolerant dependent on different physiological and morphological traits. Moinuddin, et al. (2005) showed a significant positive correlation between osmotic adjustment and grain yield under different levels from moisture on six wheat genotypes. Correlation coefficient value increased as water stress increased. Al-Kaisi and Shanahan (2006) stated that water stress during boot and heading stages limits yield potential. Therefore, irrigation to prevent stress during boot and heading would be more advisable than delaying irrigation until grain filling. Adequate soil moisture from the boot stage through the bloom stage increases grain yield and test weight.

This study was conducted to investigate the response of six high yielding wheat genotypes to irrigation water stress depending on the water depletion percentage.

Materials and Methods

This study was carried out at Agricultural Research Station, Hada El- Sham, King Abdul-Aziz University during 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 seasons to evaluate six high yielding wheat genotypes under three irrigation water stress treatments. Split-plot design with four replications was used in this study. Main plot treatments were three irrigation water stress treatments depending on the depletion percentage (50, 75 and 90%) which was reflected in irrigation intervals. Sub plots were occupied with six wheat genotypes, these are the local commercial cv. Ucora Roj.

besides five promising genotypes selected according to their high yield potentiality: GN02, GN03, GN04, GN05 and GN06.

Irrigation intervals were determined according to the soil characteristics and water consumption of wheat crop which depended on the growth stage of wheat crop. Growth stages of wheat crops were recognized according to Al-Zaid, et al. (1988). Total available water in soil (TAW) was determined with 5.5/100cm and the (TAW) of wheat plant with roots around 80cm was determined with 4.4cm. Water consumption rate of wheat crop during the period of January, February, March and April were measured as 2.5, 4.7, 6.3 and 4.3mm/day, respectively. Water consumptions of wheat crop were calculated by

multiplying wheat crop factors 0.64, 1.04, 1.15 and 0.8 for January, February, March and April, respectively (Al-Zaid et al., 1988) by reference evapotranspiration of the studied area, 3.8, 4.5, 5.5 and 6.6m/day for January, February, March and April, respectively (Basahi, 2002). Accordingly, irrigation intervals were determined for each growth stage at depletion percentages 50, 75 and 90%. The irrigation interval used in the first month of wheat growth (January) was 5 days to prevent the adversely stress in the first growth month. Allen, et al. (1998) stated that water depletion percentage more than 55% may cause the stress of wheat plant. Irrigation time table is tabulated in Table 1.

Sub plot size 3 x 5 m consisted of 15 wheat rows, with 20 cm apart.

The other cultural practices were done according to the recommended cultural practices of wheat production in Western Region of KSA. Data were recoded on ten guarded random wheat plants from each sub plot for plant height (cm), no. of spikes/plant, spike length (cm), grain weight/plant and 100-grain weight (g), while grain yield/ha(t) was calculated from the grain yield of the rest guarded (2.5 x 4.5 m) sub plot area. Statistical analysis was done for the recorded data of the two seasons using the combined analysis according to the split plot design (Steel and Torrie, 2000) using SAS program (2000).

Table 1. Time table of irrigation during the experiment in the two seasons.

Month Depletion (%) Water Depletion

(mm)

Water Consumption/day

(mm/day)

Irrigation Interval (day) 50 22

75 33 January

90 42

2.5 5

50 22 5

75 33 7

February

90 42 4.7

9

50 22 3

75 33 5

March

90 42 6.3

7

50 22 4

75 33 6

April

90 42 5.3

8

Results and Discussion

According to the results of analysis of variance of the studied wheat traits under the effects of the three irrigation schedules and the six wheat genotypes in each season, combined analysis was done for the two studied seasons and the averages were presented in Tables 2-6.

Data presented in Table 2 show means of the studied wheat traits under the effects of the three irrigation schedules (50, 75 and 90%

depletion percentages) as average of the six wheat genotypes and the two studied seasons. The presented data showed significant domination for the 50% over the other two treatments in grain yield/ha and yield components, but no significant differences were found between the effects of 50% and 75% depletion treatments on plant height. In general, the 90% depletion treatment had the lowest significant mean values in all studied treatments. Grain yield/ha was 5.82 t/ha under the 50% depletion treatment and decreased to 5.30 t/ha by around 9% decreasing from the grain yield under the 75% depletion then grain yield rapidly decreased with around 26% and 19% less than the grain yield of 50% and 75%

water depletion treatments (Table 2). The same trend was observed for the response of grain yield components to the irrigation water stress of the 75% and 90% water depletion treatments. No. of spikes/plant under the 75% and 90% depletion treatments significantly decreased by around 5% and 16% compared to the 50% depletion treatment (Table 2). Mean of spike length was 11.35 cm under the 50% depletion and significantly decreased to 10.37 cm and 8.69 cm under the 75% and 90% water depletion, respectively. The 100-grain weight under the water stress treatments significantly decreased with around 7% and 20% under the 75% and 90% depletion treatments, respectively compared to the 50%

water depletion (Table 2). Results of no. of spikes/plant, spike length and 100-grain weight under the three irrigation treatments reflected the response of plant grain weight. Mean grain weight/plant under the 50%

depletion was 4.04 g/plant while it decreased to 3.54 g/plant under the 75% depletion and 2.48 g/plant under the 90% depletion with decreasing around 12% and 39% from the 50% water depletion, respectively.

The previous results of the grain yield as water depletion percentage increased might be due to the reduction effects of the two water stresses (75% and 90% water depletion) on the yield components, no. of spikes/plant, spike length, grain weight/plant and 100-grain weight which was reflected in the grain yield/ha reduction as water stress increased.

These results are confirmed by the results of Ghodsi et al. (1998), Siddique, et al. (2000) and Zarea-Fizabady and Ghodsi (2004). Also, the results of the high interaction of reduction in yield after 75% depletion percentages were similar with the results obtained by Schneider and Howell (2001) and Al-Kaisi and Shanahan(2006).

Table 2. Means of different wheat traits under the effects of irrigation water stress treatments as over of the six wheat genotypes and the two seasons.

Irrigation Schedules Trait

50% Water Depletion

75% Water Depletion

90% Water Depletion Plant Height (cm) 80.42^a* 77.61^a 69.57^b No. of Spikes/plant 3.71^a 3.53^b 3.11^c Spike Length (cm) 11.35^a 10.37^b 8.69^c 100-Grain Weight (g) 3.59^a 3.33^b 2.86^c Grain Weight/plant (g) 4.04^a 3.54^b 2.48^c Grain Yield (t/ha) 5.819^a 5.432^b 4.060^c

• Means followed by the same letter for each trait did not significantly different according to BLSD at 0.05 level of probability.

According to the significant irrigation water stress x genotypes effects on the grain yield/ha, mean values of grain yield/ha under the effect of irrigation water stress x genotype interaction are presented in Table 3. No significant differences were found between the local cultivar, GN02 and GN06 wheat genotypes in grain yield/ha under the 75% or 90% irrigation water depletion treatments. As for the response of the studied genotypes under the different irrigation water depletion, treatments data in Table 3 showed no significant differences in grain yield/ha among the local cultivar under the 50% irrigation water depletion (6.20 t/ha) and the local cultivar and the genotypes GN02 (5.52 t/ha) and the GN06 (5.57 t/ha) under the 75% irrigation water depletion.

Also, no significant differences were found among the GN03 (5.13 t/ha), GN04 (4.87 t/ha) and GN05 (5.07 t/ha) genotypes under the effect of the 50% irrigation water depletion treatment and all genotypes under the 75% irrigation water depletion (Table 3). Under the 90% irrigation water depletion, all studied genotypes produced the lowest significant grain yield/ha comparing with the response of these genotypes under the 50%

and 75% irrigation water depletion as shown in Table 2. These results are confirmed by Rizza, et al. (2004) and Zarea-Fizabady and Ghodsi (2004).

These results are very important for the wheat producers especially under the limiting water resources where we can cultivate any of the

wheat genotypes, local cultivar, GN02 or the GN06 wheat genotypes under 75% irrigation water depletion with no significant differences in grain yield comparing with the local cultivar (Ucora Rojo) under the 50%

irrigation water depletion According to these results the schedules of irrigation can be used without significant depression in grain yield in the second schedule. This saves around 30% of the irrigation water compared to the 50% irrigation water depletion (1^st schedule).

Table 3. Means of wheat grain yield/ha (t) under the effects of the interaction of wheat genotypes x irrigation water stress treatments as average of the 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 seasons.

Genotype 50% Water Depletion 75% Water Depletion 90% Water Depletion

Ucora Rojo 6.206 5.824 4.062

GN02 6.505 5.890 4.163

GN03 5.134 5.055 4.014

GN04 5.265 4.874 4.060

GN05 5.366 5.173 4.052

GN06 6.440 5.776 4.025

BLSD (0.05) to compare between genotype means under the same level of irrigation water stress treatments = 0.70.

BLSD (0.05) to compare between genotype means under different levels of irrigation water stress treatments = 0.76.

As for grain weight/plant under the effects of the interaction of genotype x irrigation water depletion treatments, mean values are presented in Table 4. Under each irrigation treatment, the GN02 genotype, local cultivar, GN05 and GN06 wheat genotypes occupied the highest ranks between the six studied genotypes. Comparing the response of genotypes to the three irrigation water depletion treatments, data revealed that the grain weight/plant of the GN02 genotype (4.55g) under the 50% irrigation water depletion didn’t significantly differ from its grain weight/plant under the 75% irrigation water depletion. Also, no significant differences were found between the GN05, GN06, GN04 and GN03 genotypes under the 50% and 75% irrigation water depletion. On the other hand all wheat genotypes produced the lowest grain yield/plant values under the 95% water depletion (Table 4). Deonisio, et al. (2001) and Jiang, et al. (2003) found similar results.

Table 4. Means of grain weight/plant (g) under the effects of the interaction of wheat genotypes x irrigation water stress treatments as average of the 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 seasons.

Genotype 50% Water Depletion 75% Water Depletion 90% Water Depletion

Ucora Rojo 4.3 3.41 2.12

GN02 4.55 4.11 2.72

GN03 3.80 3.22 2.33

GN04 3.64 3.12 2.21

GN05 4.09 3.78 2.61

GN06 3.91 3.58 3.70

BLSD (0.05) to compare between genotype means under the same level of irrigation water stress treatments = 0.68.

BLSD (0.05) to compare between genotype means under different levels of irrigation water stress treatments = 0.74.

Concerning, the response of spike length to the effect of the irrigation treatments x genotypes interaction, data in the Table 5 show that the highest spike length values were produced from the GN02 (13.7cm) and local wheat cultivar (13.3cm) under the 50% irrigation water depletion, also the same trend was found under the 70% irrigation water depletion with values of 13.0cm and 12.5cm respectively. No significant differences were detected between spike length of the local cv. or the GN02 genotype under the 50% and 75% irrigation water depletion. Also, other wheat genotypes had the same response to the irrigation water stress under the 75% irrigation water depletion (Table 5).

Table 5. Means of spike length (cm) under the effects of the interaction of wheat genotypes x irrigation water stress treatments as average of the 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 seasons.

Genotype 50% Water Depletion 75% Water Depletion 90% Water Depletion

Ucora Rojo 13.3 13.0 9.6

GN02 13.7 12.5 10.7

GN03 10.4 8.80 6.61

GN04 9.97 8.13 7.39

GN05 9.22 8.90 8.02

GN06 11.51 10.92 9.79

BLSD (0.05) to compare between genotype means under the same level of irrigation water stress treatments = 1.96.

BLSD (0.05) to compare between genotype means under different levels of irrigation water stress treatments = 2.13.

The genotype x irrigation water stress interaction produced in this study was stated by Deonisio et al. (2001), Rizza et al. (2004) and Zarea- Fizabady and Ghodsi (2004). The significant effects of genotype on the plant height, no. of spikes/plant and the 100-grain weight besides insignificant effects of irrigation water depletion x genotype interaction on these three traits led us to discuss the comparisons between the genotype means for these traits. No significant differences were shown between the local cv., GN02, GN03, GN04 and GN05, but the GN06 genotype plant height significantly decreased compared to the other five genotypes. Plant height ranged from 82.4cm for GN03 to 63.43cm for GN06 genotype. Only, the GN05 genotype had the highest significant no.

of spikes/plant, and no significant differences between the other 5 genotypes were detected (Table 6). The highest 100-seed weight (3.69g) produced from the local cv. followed by the GN02, GN03, GN04 and GN06 genotypes with no significant differences between these four genotypes, while, the lowest 100-seed weight was produced from the GN05 genotype (2.88g).

Table 6. Means of different traits of the six studied wheat genotypes as average over the irrigation water stress treatments and the two seasons.

Genotypes Trait

Ucora

Rojo GN02 GN03 GN04 GN05 GN06 Plant Height (cm) 76.80^a* 81.87^a 82.4^a 74.92^a 75.77^a 63.43^b No. of Spikes/plant 3.47^b 3.43^b 3.30^b 3.33^b 4.69^a 3.22^b Spike Length (cm) 11.97^a 12.30^a 8.60^c 8.50^c 8.71^c 10.73^b 100-Grain Weight (g) 3.69^a 3.09^bc 3.03^bc 3.28^b 2.88^c 3.22^b Grain Weight/plant (g) 3.27^bc 3.85^a 3.10^cd 2.97^d 3.53^b 3.40^bc Grain Yield (t/ha) 5.36^ab 5.68^a 4.73^c 4.73^c 4.86^b 5.41^ab

* Means followed by the same letter (s) for each trait did not significantly different according to BLSD at 0.05 level of probability.

The obtained results of the different responses for the wheat genotypes to the water stresses might depend on genotype and geno- physiological behavior during different growth stages under the studied water stress levels.

References

Al-Zaid, A., Kontana, E., Abo-Khait, M., Nema, M., Bashoor, E. and El-Sameraei, F. (1988) Water Requirements of the Main Crops in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Ministry of Water and Agriculture, Riyadh, KSA (in Arabic).

Al-Kaisi, M.M. and Shanahan, J.F. (2006) Irrigation of Winter Wheat. Colorado State, Univ.

Cooperative Extension no. 556.

Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D. and Smith, M. (1998) Crop Evapotranspiration, Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements, FAO Irrigation and drainage paper No. 56. FAO:

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Rome, Italy.

Basahi, G.M. (2002) Determination of reference evapo-transpiration for Kingdom of Saudi Arabia using Pinman Montith equation and GIS, Environ. Sci. J., 5: 1031-1051 (in Arabic).

Brar, G.S., Kar, S. and Singh, N.T. (1990) Photosynthetic response of wheat to soil water deficits in the tropics, J. Agron. Crop Sci. 164: 343-348.

Chaturvedi, G.S., Aggarwal, P.K., Singh, A.K., Joshi, M.G. and Sinha, S.K. (2004) Effect of irrigation on tillering in wheat, triticale and barley in a water-limited environment, Irrigation Science, 2: 225-235.

Collanku, A. A. and Harrison, S. (2005) Heritability of water logging tolerance in wheat, Crop Sci., 45: 722-727.

Deonisio, D., Edison, M., Arrabal, A., Marcos, V. and Vieirode, A. (2001) Main stem and tiller contribution on wheat cultivars yield under different irrigation regimes, Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology, 44: 325-330.

Ghodsi, M., Nuzeri M. and Zarea-Fizabady, A. (1998) The Reaction of New Cultivars and Alite Lines on Spring Wheat into Drought Stress, Collection of Abstract Articles of 5^th Iranian Agronomy and Plant Breeding Conference, Karaj, Iran, 252p.

Hati, K.M., Mandal, K.G., Misra, A.K., Ghosh, P.K. and Acharya, C.L.(2001) Effect of irrigation regimes and nutrient management on soil water dynamics, evapo-transpiration and yield of wheat in versitol, Indian J. Agric. Sci., 71: 581-587.

Jiang, G.M., Sun, J.Z., Lin, H.Q., Qu, C.M., Wang, K.J., Gho, R.J., Bail, K.Z., Gao, L.M.

and Kuang, T.Y. (2003) Quantum of water requirement by plants, Journal of Plant Research, 116: 347-354.

Moinuddin, R.A., Fisher, K., Sayr, D. and Reynolds, M.P. (2005) Osmotic adjustment in wheat in relation to grain yield under deficit environment, Agron. J., 97: 1062-1071.

Oweis, T., Zhang, H. and Pala, M. (2000) Water use efficiency of rainfed and irrigation bread wheat in a Mediterranean Environment, Agron. J., 192: 231-238.

Peck, R.A. and Kirkham, L.(1979) Water relations and yield of winter wheat grown under three water regimes in the high plains, Proc. Okla. Acad. Sci., 12: 53-59.

Rizza, F., Badeck, F.W., Cattivelli, L., Lidestri, O., Difonzo, N. and Stanca, A.M. (2004) Use of a water stress index to identify barley genotypes adapted to rainfed and irrigated conditions, Crop Sci., 44: 2127-2137.

SAS/STAT, 9.1 User Guide, vol.7, SAS Institute, SAS Pub., 2000.

Schneider, A.D. and Howell, T.A. (2001) Scheduling deficit wheat irrigation with data from an evapotranspiration network, Trans. ASAE, 44: 1617-1623.

Siddique, M.R.B., Humid, A. and Islam, M.S. (2000) Drought stress effects on water relations of wheat, Bot. Bull. Acad. Sin., 41: 35-39.

Steel, R.G.D. and Torrie, J.H. (2000) Principles and Procedures of Statistics with Special Reference to the Biological Science, 4^th ed., Mc Graw-Hill, N.Y., U.S.A.

Zarea-Fizabady, A. and Ghodsi, M. (2004) Evaluation of yield and yield components of facultative and winter bread wheat genotypes under different irrigation regimes in Khorasam Province, Iran, Journal of Agronomy, 3: 184-187.

!"# $%& $

–

–

–

.

!" # $%

&''(

/

&'')

*

&'') /

&''+

$ , - $.# $#

- 01 - 2 ,1#

*

30- 45 678

1 9

2 2:# #

; <

)'

=

*

>)

=

?'

= 30# 0

; . 8 A B# 2:# A C;#0 7

# D ; E0 A1 F." 2 ,1

- B- 6

, /

#1

* , A /

0

* "0 .

3"# $

, - /

#1

* 30-"

9 ) 1 ( E0

A GN02

A " I # GN06

# 6 "# ; 30#J .

K 4

30-

1 , - 4"

/ #1 ) )') +, A / #1 (

# )'

= ; 30#

E0 3"# $ A1 * - A

2:# # 30- LB0 8 "

>)

= ; 30#

*

# )

)&

), A /

#1 (*

# 7 M

E0 D

8 " # GN06

>)

= ; 30#

* #

)>

), A /

#1 . 8 " # A1

?'

= ; 30#

,1# D #1 - A1 K # 2

E0 M 8 . 0.

. A 1 !" K

, A /

6 "0 0 2 ,1#

# #

!" LB0 22 8 2:#

* - 2

, /

#1 . 0

* 2:# N $ I

B#

O"

* E0 P6# !0 A1 $"6 # # A

#"

)'

= ) (&

Q',

$ ( *

>)

= ) +R

>>,

$ ( 30#

; E0 SB0 0 * 8 " #

?'

= ; 30#

) )>

+?,

$ (.

0 0

/ 0

*

E0 7B0 .6 6 T D

; 8

*

01

>R U, * )U U, * RR U, "0 / 0 )'

= *

>)

=

?'

= ; 30#

. 0 ,1# 6 0

2

* ,1# A 0 6# !0 A1 $"6

* 0

0 B"# -K GN06

AV A .

01 A 6

" - GN05

4 0 /

0

) +?

(, (*

E0 B"#

,1# . A M

* #

E0 # 0 6

/ 0 .