Compatibility and stability of new rhizomania resistant multigerm hybrids in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.)

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Sugar Beet Research Department, Hamedan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, AREEO, Hamedan, Iran.

2 Agricultural and Natural Resources Research Center of Hamedan, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Iran

Abstract

Five new and resistant rhizomania multigerm hybrids were prepared by crossbreeding of related parents and for preliminary evaluation and compatibility evaluation with two multigerm and resistant and one sensitive internal control, were evaluated in five regions of Hamedan, Karaj, Mashhad, Shiraz, and West Azerbaijan under Rhizomania natural infection. The design was a randomized complete block with four replications, which was conducted in the 2020 crop year. In this study, root yield, sugar content, white sugar content, and white sugar yield were measured.
In the present study, although there was no significant difference between genotypes in Karaj and Shiraz in terms of white sugar yield, but in Mashhad and Hamedan environments, hybrid No.3, with an average of 11.24 and 13.51 ton/ha, respectively, and in Miandoab environment foreign control cultivar (Aras) with an average of 15.06 ton/ha, showed the highest white sugar yield.
AMMI analysis results showed that the first two components explained 69.81 and 25.48% of the variance of the interaction for root yield, respectively. The biplot diagram obtained from the first and second main components of interaction for genotypes and environments showed that genotype G7 (Motahar) was a stable genotype and G9 (Aras) was an unstable genotype. Based on the results of two-dimensional diagrams related to the first two main components of the interaction of genotype in the environment, for Miandoab and Shiraz environments, genotype number G9 (Aras) and for Hamedan, Mashhad, and Karaj environments, G3 hybrid showed suitable private compatibility and was identified as suitable genotypes for these environments.

Keywords

References

Darabi S, Bazrafshan M, Babaee B and Mahmoodi SB. 2017.  impact of Rhizomania Virus (Beet necrotic yellow vein virus) on Sugar Beet Yield and Qualitative Characters. Journal of Applied Research in Plant Protection, 6 (3): 67-82.
 Moshari S, Hemati R, Mahmoudi SB  and Pedram A. 2019. Evaluation of sugar beet commercial cultivars resistance against root rot caused by R. solani and F. oxysporum. Journal of Sugar Beet, 35 (2):121-139.
Mahmoudi SB, Norouzi P, Khayamim S, Bazrafshan M, Mansouri H, Ahmadi M, Sadeghzadeh Hemayati S and Ghaeezadeh M. 2021.  Identification of proper maternal parent for producing sugar beet cultivars resistant to major soil borne diseases. Journal of Sugar Beet, 36 (1):1-13. (In Persian).
Farshadfar E and Sutka J. 2006. Biplot analysis of genotype-environment interaction in durum wheat using the AMMI model. Acta Agronomica Hungarica, 54(4): 459- 467
Abdemishani S and Shahnejatboshehri AA. 2008. Advance in Plant Breeding. Tehran university press, 248 pp (In Persian).
Annicchiarico P. 1997. Joint regression vs AMMI analysis of genotype-environment interactions for cereals in Italy. Euphytica, 94: 53-62.
Raiger HL and Prabhakaran VT. 2001. A study on the performance of a few non-parametric stability measures using pearl-millet data. Indian Journal of Genetic, 61: 7- 11.
Gauch HG. 2006. Statistical analysis of yield trials by AMMI and GGE. Crop Science, 46: 1488- 1500.
Yan W, Hunt LA, Sheng Q and Szlavnics Z. 2000. Cultivar evaluation and mega environment investigations based on the GGE biplot. Crop Science, 40: 597-605.
Yan W and Hunt LA. 2002. Biplot analysis of diallel data. Crop Science, 42: 21-30.
FAOSTAT. 2021. Crops Production /Yield quantities of Sugar beet. Available at: http://www.fao.org/faostat/ (Accessed October 4th 2021).
Hasani M, Hamze H and Mansori H. 2021. Evaluation of Adaptability and Stability of Root Yield and White Sugar Yield (Beta vulgaris L.) in Sugar Beet Genotypes using Multivariate AMMI and GGE Biplot Method. Journal of Crop Breeding, 13 (37):222-235. (In Persian).
Safar S, Bazrafshan M, Khoshnami M. Behrooz AA, Hedayati F, Maleki M, Mahmoudi SB and Ali Malboobi M. 2020. Field evaluation for rhizomania resistance of transgenic sugar beet events based on gene silencing. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology, 2: 1-10.
Rush CM, Liu HY, Lewellen RT and Acosta-Leal R. 2006. The continuing saga of rhizomania of sugar beets in the United State. Plant Disease, 90: 4-15.
McGrann GR, Grimmer MK, Mutasa-Göttgens ES and Stevens M. 2009. Progress towards the understanding and control of sugar beet rhizomania disease. Molecular Plant Pathology, 10: 129-141.
Mostafavi K, Orazizadeh MR and Rajabi A. 2017. Genotype - environment interaction pattern analysis for sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) cultivars yield using AMMI multivariate method. Journal of sugar beet, 33(2): 135-147 (In Persian).
Hassani M, Heidari B, Dadkhodaie A and Stevanato P. 2018. Genotype by environment interaction components underlying variations in root, sugar and white sugar yield in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Euphytica, 214(79): 4-21.
Stevanato P, De Biaggi M, Broccanello C, Biancardi E and Saccomani M.2015. Molecular genotyping of ‘‘Rizor’’ and ‘‘Holly’’ rhizomania resistances in sugar beet. Euphytica, 206: 427- 431.
Pavli OI, Stevanato P, Biancardi E and Skaracis GN. 2011. Achievements and prospects in breeding for rhizomania resistance in sugar beet. Field Crop Research, 122: 165-172.
McGrann GRD, Grimmer MK, Mutasa-Gottgens ES and Stevens M. 2009. Progress towards the understanding and control of sugar beet rhizomania disease. Molecular Plant Pathology, 10: 129– 141.
CUMSA 2009. International Commission for Uniform Methods of Sugar Analysis, Methods Book. Berlin, Bartens.
JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION
Volume 33, Issue 1
April 2023
Pages 113-128

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics