Agric. sci. dev., Vol(3), No (11), November, 2014. pp.

375-380

TI Journals

Agriculture Science Developments

www.tijournals.com

ISSN:
2306-7527
Copyright 2014. All rights reserved for TI Journals.

Application of integrated selection index and morpho-physiological

traits for screening drought tolerant genotypes in bread wheat
Khosroo Ershadimanesh *
University of Applied Science and Technology, Kermanshah Branch, Iran.

Hooman Shirvani
Department of Agriculture, Payame Noor University, Iran.
*Corresponding author: kh.ershadi.m@gmail.com

Keywords

Abstract

Wheat (Triticum aestivum)

Agro-morphological traits
Physiological indicators
Integrated Selection Index
Biplot analysis
Ranking method

In order to identify drought tolerant bread wheat genotypes using agro-morphological traits, physiological
criteria and new integrated selection index, 23 bread wheat genotypes were studied in a randomized complete
block design (RCBD) with three replications under irrigated and rainfed conditions during the growing season
of 2011-2012. Except trait relative water loss (RWL), the results of variance analysis (ANOVA) showed
significant differences in terms of all traits in the rainfed condition. Genotype (13) had higher relative water
content (RWC), grains yield (YS), number of grains per spike (NGS) and 1000-grains weight (GW) while
genotypes (22) and (23) exhibited lower value for this trait under rainfed conditions. In our study, genotypes
(21), (22) and (12) displayed the lowest and genotypes (13), (7) and (20) the highest values for integrated
selection index (ISI). Principal component analysis (PCA) showed that the integrated selection index (ISI) was
correlated with relative chlorophyll content (RCC), 1000-grains weight (GW), number of grain per spike
(NGS) and grain yield under irrigation and rainfed conditions. The Results indicating that these screening
techniques can be useful for selecting drought tolerant genotypes. Screening drought tolerant genotypes using
mean rank, deviation of and rank sum discriminated genotypes (13), (3) and (18) as the most droughts tolerant.
Therefore, this genotype recommended to be used as parents for genetic analysis, gene mapping and
improvement of drought tolerance in bread wheat.

1.

Introduction

Wheat (Triticum aestivum) is the worlds widely adapted crop, providing one-third of the world population with more than half of their calories
and nearly half of their protein. Wheat is mainly grown on rainfed lands and about 35% of the area of developing countries consists of semiarid
environments in which available moisture constitutes a primary constraint on wheat production. Climatic variability in these marginal
environments causes large annual fluctuations in yield. Selection of wheat genotypes with better adaptation to drought stress should increase the
productivity of rainfed wheat [30]. Plants are exposed to numerous stress factors during their lives, which is of a significant effect on the growth
of plants. Biotic (pathogen, competition with other organisms) and abiotic (drought, salinity, radiation, high temperature or freezing etc.) stresses
cause changes in normal physiological functions of all plants, including economically important cereals as well. All these stresses reduce
biosynthetic capacity of plants and might cause some destructive damages on the plants [26]. Drought is a significant limiting factor for
agricultural productivity and generally inhibits plant growth through reduced water absorption and nutrient uptake. Decreased water availability
generally results in reduced growth and final yield in crop plants. Plant drought tolerance is a highly complex trait that involves multiple genetic,
physiological and biochemical mechanisms [2, 10]. The degree of plant drought tolerance differs not only among various species but also among
different varieties of the same species. Screening for drought tolerance was accomplished by selecting genotypes under field conditions. Field
methods of evaluating the degree of drought tolerance allow a direct or indirect estimation of the variation of determinate traits in the examined
genotypes. Measurements of different physiological processes for plants responses to drought are important information on the various strategies
of the plant intended to remove or to reduce the harmful effects of water deficit in soil or plant tissues. In the field indices of drought tolerance,
the preference was given to the relations between the plant yield obtained under conditions of drought and that under conditions of optimum soil
moistening. Dencic et al. [9] reported that many morphological and physiological characteristics were affected by drought stress. Agronomic
traits such as grain yield and its components are the major selection criteria for evaluating drought tolerance under field conditions [9]. Gupta et
al. [19] studied physiological and yield attributes of two wheat genotypes with stress at boot and anthesis. They reported that number of grains,
grain yield, biological yield, and harvest index decreased to a greater extent when water stress was imposed at anthesis stage. Therefore,
physiological and biochemical approaches have a great importance in order to understand the complex responses of plants to water deficiency
and develop rapidly the new varieties. A physiological approach would be the most attractive way to develop new varieties [1] but breeding for
specific, sub-optimal environments involves a deeper understanding of yield-determining process. Generally, different strategies have been
proposed for the selection of relative drought tolerance and resistance, so, some researchers have proposed selection under non-stress conditions
[32, 29, 3], others have suggested selection in the target stress conditions [7, 31] while, several of them have chosen the mid-way and believe in
selection under both non-stress and stress conditions [17, 8, 16, 6]. In addition to that, different indices such as SSI [17], TOL [33], STI and
GMP [16], DRI [4], MSTI [15] have been reported for selection of drought tolerance genotypes.
The main objectives of the present study were therefore to (1) identify high yielding wheat genotypes tolerant to drought stress condition (2)
screen drought tolerant criteria (3) and introduce an integrated selection index of agronomic and physiological indicators of drought tolerance.

2.

Methodology

2.1. Description of the project site and growth conditions

To investigate the effects of water deficit stress in 23 genotypes bread wheat (were provided from International Center for Agricultural Research
in the Dry Areas), a research was carried out at experimental field of Agricultural Training Centre, MahiDasht station, Kermanshah Province,
Iran in 2011-2012. They were assessed in a randomized complete block design with three replications under irrigated and rainfed conditions.

Khosroo Ershadimanesh, Hooman Shirvani *

376

Agriculture Science Developments Vol(3), No (11), November, 2014.

Sowing was done by an experimental drill in 1.2 m 6 m plots, consisting of six rows 20 cm apart at 400 seeds m-2 for each site. Fertilizer was
applied at 41 kg ha-1 N and 46 kg ha-1 P2O 5 and planting was according to the provincial soil test recommendations before sowing. Irrigation was
performed in the non-stressed site at the flowering stage. The names of genotypes showed in Table 1.
Table 1. Genotype codes
Genotype NO.
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
G7
G8
G9
G10
G11
G12
G13
G14
G15
G16
G17
G18
G19
G20
G21
G22
G23

Pedigree /Name
OR F1.158/FDL//BLO/3/SHI4414/CROW/4/C
SARDARI-HD35/5/DMN//SUT/AG(ES86-7)/3
CA8055//KS82W409/STEPHENS
F130-L-1-12//PONY/OPATA
SABALAN/4/VRZ/3/OR F1.148/TDL//BLO
PYN/BAU//VORONA/HD2402
JCAM/EMUS//DOVES/3/ALVD/4/MV17/ATTILA
KAR-1//RMNF12-71/JUPS
TEVEES//CROW/VEES
HAMAM-4
KATILA-13
KATILA-1
QAFZAH-25
KAUZS/MACHETE
STAR/SHUHA-4 / 1
STAR/SHUHA-4 / 2
CHAM-6/SHUHA-14
BOHOUTH-4//NS732/HER
CRR/ATTILA-OSE-OYC-12YE-OYC-1YC-OYC
CHUM 1 8ISERI/3/AGRIINAC//ATTILA
Sardari
Azar-2
Rijaw (PATO/CAL/3/7C//BB/CNO/5/CAL//CNO)

2.2. Crop sampling and calculation

Agronomic characteristics and physiological criteria including: relative water loss (RWL), relative water content (RWC), relative chlorophyll
content (RCC), spike length (SL-cm), number of grains per spike (NGS), 1000-grains weight (GW-gr), grain yield (gr), leaf temperature (TEM)
and flag leaf length (FLL) were measured after the physiological maturity in 10 selected plants of each experimental plot, randomly. At harvest
time, yield potential (Yp) and stress yield (Ys) were measured from 2 rows 1 m in length.
Physiological criteria were used for flag leaf measurement. The chlorophyll content in the flag leaf was determined using a chlorophyll meter
(SPAD-502, Japan). Ten flag leaves of each genotype grown in stress and non-stress conditions were measured after tillering stage. Three
measurements in the middle of the flag leaf were made randomly for each plant, and the average sample was used for analysis. Relative water
content (RWC) was determined according to Turner, [35] where fresh leaves were taken from each genotype and each replication after tillering
stage and weighed immediately to record fresh weight (FW). Then they were placed in distilled water for 4 h and weighed again to record their
turgid weight (TW). After that they were subjected to oven drying at 70C for 24h to record their dry weight (DW). The RWC was calculated
using the following equation:

RWC = ((FW - DW)/(TW - DW)) 100

Relative water loss (RWL) was determined according to Gavuzzi et al. [18] ten young fully expanded leaves were sampled for each of three
replications at anthesis stage. The leaf samples were weighed (FW), wilted for 4hour at 35C, reweighed (WW4h), and oven dried for 24 h at
72C to obtain dry weight (DW). The RWL was calculated using the following formula:

RWL (%) = [(FM - WW4h)/(FW - DW)] 100

Also, leaf temperature (TEM) measurement was made using the infrared thermometer. The pressure chamber method was used for measuring
the leaf water potential [5].
2.2.1. Integrated Selection Index (ISI)
ISI was calculated based on factor analysis of physiological traits under water deficit and the following three formulas:
(1) Sij= (Xi j j)/ j
(2) MPij= (Sijd + Sijw)/2
(3) ISIi= b1MPi1+ b2 MPi2++ bjMPij
where Sij= is the standardized physiological value of trait j (j =1 to 9) in genotype i under irrigated and drought conditions, Xij = physiological
and agro-morphological value of genotype i on trait j, j= mean value of trait j in all genotypes, j= the standard deviation of trait j, MPij= the
mean productivity of trait j on genotype i, bj the weight value of trait j, bj was populated from the average contribution to factor 1 and ISI =
integrated selection index.
Formula (1) standardizes the value of different traits to the same unit of measure; formula (2) evaluates the appearance of genotype for each trait;
and formula (3) integrates the appearance of genotypes for all traits. When defining weight values for each trait, average contribution of factor 1
to 9 major traits related to drought resistance at irrigated and water deficit stress conditions in the factor analysis were considered as bj and trait
had negative functions in the final result (Table 2). Using physiological and agro-morphological data of irrigated and water deficit conditions,
the formerly proposed selection index was calculated related to drought resistance.

377

Application of integrated selection index and morpho-physiological traits for screening drought tolerant genotypes in bread wheat
Agriculture Science Developments Vol(3), No (11), November, 2014.

Table 2. Contribution of factor 1 to 9 of the major traits related to drought resistance under rainfed and irrigated condition

3.

Trait

rainfed

irrigated

RWL
RWC
TEM
RCC
SL
FLL
NGS
GW
Grain Yield

-0.339
0.426
-0.12
0.74
0.576
0.627
0.595
0.149
0.694

-0.168
0.371
-0.516
0.668
0.56
0.752
0.761
0.178
0.694

Results and discussion

3.1. Anova analysis and comparison mean

Except trait relative water loss (RWL), the results of variance analysis showed significant differences in terms of all traits in the rainfed
condition (Table 3). Also, except traits relative water loss (RWL) and leaf temperature (TEM) the results of variance analysis showed significant
differences in terms of all traits expected for irrigated condition (Table 4). This indicates that the magnitude of differences in genotypes was
sufficient to select them against drought. Kutlu and Kinaci, [25] also reported similar results for agro-morphological traits and grain yield in both
stress and non-stress conditions. Also, Farshadfar, [12] showed significant difference between genotypes wheat in term of physiological traits
under stress and non-stress. The results revealed that water decreased the grain yield of all genotypes significantly. Similar observations have
been reported in bread wheat [12].
Table 3. Analysis of variance for agro-morphological trait and physiological criteria in rainfed condition.
S.O.V

Df

Replication

Genotype
Error
CV(%)

22
44

RWC
n.s
10.27
82.10**
6.99
18.50

RWL

TEM

SL

MS
FLL

RCC

GW

NGS

3848.5*
n.s
263.67
326.69
25.33

22.01*

1.94*

16.73*

65.12**

23.36*

60. 549 *

YS
1.71 n.s

6.45*
4.63
2.36

3.19**
1.14
10.23

15.87*
9.86
15.02

36.99**
11.88
7.44

51.52**
6.20
7.16

91. 19**
29. 11
19.88

10.68**
4.52
15.19

*and ** Significant at 5% and 1% level of probability, respectively

RWL, RWC, TEM, RCC, SL, FLL, NGS, GW and YS indicate; relative water loss, relative water content, leaf temperature, relative chlorophyll content, spike length, flag leaf length,
number of grains per spike, 1000-grains weight and stress yield, respectively.

Table 4. Analysis of variance for agro-morphological trait and physiological criteria in irrigated condition.
S.O.V

Df

Replication

Genotype

22
44

Error
CV(%)

RWC
39.58 n.s
210.76*
194.04
42.57

RWL
218.38*
22.62 n.s

TEM
13.9*
11.73 n.s

24.78
5.64

12.83
4.07

SL
5.09**

MS
FLL
8.94*

RCC
58.58*

2.31**
0.68
7.88

15.39**
4.49
9.47

32.00*
15.56
8.35

GW

NGS

54.01 n.s
79.48**
35.06
16.21

19.9 n.s
88.25*
46.6
24.78

YP
8.98*
9.45**
3.78
12.77

*and ** Significant at 5% and 1% level of probability, respectively

RWL, RWC, TEM, RCC, SL, FLL, NGS, GW and YP indicate; relative water loss, relative water content, leaf temperature, relative chlorophyll content, spike length, flag leaf length,
number of grains per spike, 1000-grains weight and, yield potential respectively.

Genotype (13) had higher grains yield, number of grains per spike (NGS), relative water content (RWC) and 1000-grains weight (GW) while
genotypes (22) and (23) exhibited lower value for these trait under rainfed condition (Table 5). In general, this genotypic variation in these
characteristics may be attributed to differences in the ability of the variation to absorb more water from the soil and or the ability to control water
loss through the stomata's. Sairam and Saxena, [34] reported that relative water content (RWC) in leaves of wheat genotypes under irrigated and
stress conditions showed a decreasing trend with age in all genotypes. The decrease of RWC in stressed plants might be associated with the
decrease in plant vigor as observed in many plant species [27, 20]. Khanna-Chopra and Selote, [22] also reported that, during mild and severe
water stress, the drought-resistant wheat plants maintained better leaf water relations in terms of turgor potential and RWC as compared to
susceptible genotype under both acclimated as well as non-acclimated conditions. Relative water content had been identified as potential
physiological marker for drought tolerance in many crop plants such as bread wheat [12], durum wheat (Triticum durum) [28], wheat and its
wild relatives [11].
Chlorophyll maintenance is essential for photosynthesis under drought stress. Higher chlorophyll content and lower percent decrease under
stress have also been reported [24] in tolerant genotype of wheat. The results exhibited that the highest amount of relative chlorophyll content
(RCC) was attributed to genotypes (16), (17) and (20). The lowest leaf temperature (TEM) belonged to genotypes (1), (21) and (15) (Table 6).
Genotypes (1) and (20) displayed higher spike length (SL) and flag leaf length (FLL) while genotypes (14) and (12) showed lower spike length
(SL) and flag leaf length (FLL) under rainfed condition (Table 6). The lowest relative water loss (RWL) belonged to genotypes (19), (5) and (6).
In general, genotype (13) had the highest amount of grain yield and yield components in water deficit stress conditions. An integrated selection
index (ISI), was proposed as an index of drought tolerance and used to discriminate drought tolerant genotypes. In this index, 9 traits including
relative water loss (RWL), relative water content (RWC), relative chlorophyll content (RCC), spike length (SL), number of grains per spike
(NGS), 1000-grains weight (GW), grain yield (under both conditions), leaf temperature (TEM) and flag leaf length (FLL) were chosen as the

Khosroo Ershadimanesh, Hooman Shirvani *

378

Agriculture Science Developments Vol(3), No (11), November, 2014.

most relevant factors related to drought tolerance, as determined by statistical analysis. In our study, genotypes (21), (22) and (12) displayed the
lowest and genotypes (13), (7) and (20) the highest values for ISI.
3.2. Screening physiological and agro-morphological indicators and drought tolerant genotypes
3.2.1. Biplot analysis method
To better understand the relationships, similarities and dissimilarities among the indicators of drought tolerance, principal component analysis
(PCA), were used based on the rank correlation matrix. The main advantage of using PCA over cluster analysis is that each statistics can be
assigned to one group only [23]. The relationships among different indices are graphically displayed in a biplot of PCA1 and PCA2 (Fig. 1). The
PCA1 and PCA2 axes which justify 50.44% of total variation, mainly distinguish the indices in different groups. One interesting interpretation of
biplot is that the cosine of the angle between the vectors of two indices approximates the correlation coefficient between them. The cosine of the
angles does not precisely translate into correlation coefficients, since the biplot does not explain all of the variation in a dataset. Nevertheless, the
angles are informative enough to allow a whole picture about the interrelationships among the in vivo indices (Yan and Kang, 2003). The yield
potential (Yp), 1000-grains weight (GW), stress yield (Ys), relative chlorophyll content (RCC), ISI index and number of grain per spike (NGS)
were referred to group 1= G1 indices. The relative chlorophyll content (RCC), relative water loss (RWL) leaf temperature (TEM), relative water
loss (RWL) and relative water content (RWC) separated in a single group (G2) and leaf temperature (TEM), relative water loss (RWL), spike
length (SL) and flag leaf length (FLL) belonged to a third group (G3). The cosine of the angle between the vectors of two indices approximates
the correlation between them.

Figure 1. Biplot analysis of agro-morphological and physiological indicators of drought tolerance

3.2.2. Ranking method
The estimates of indicators of drought tolerance (Table 6) indicated that the identification of drought-tolerant genotypes was contradictory based
on a single criterion. The following ranking method was used to have an overall judgment. To determine the most desirable drought tolerant
genotype according to the all indices rank and mean rank of ranks of all drought tolerance criteria were calculated and the most desirable drought
tolerant genotypes were identified based on these two criteria. In consideration to all indices, genotypes (13), (3) and (18) showed the best mean
rank and low rank and rank sum in water deficit stress condition, hence they were identified as the most drought tolerant genotypes which is
almost in agreement with the results of our new index (ISI), while genotypes (12) and (22) as the most sensitive. Biplot analysis and ranking
methods have been used for screening drought tolerant genotypes by Khalili et al. [21], Farshadfar and Elyasi in wheat [13] and Farshadfar et al.
[14] in bread wheat.

379

Application of integrated selection index and morpho-physiological traits for screening drought tolerant genotypes in bread wheat
Agriculture Science Developments Vol(3), No (11), November, 2014.

Table 5. Mean comparison of the traits measured in stress and non stress conditions RWL, RWC, TEM, RCC, SL, FLL, NGS, GW, and Yield indicate; relative water loss, relative water content,
leaf temperature, relative chlorophyll content, spike length, flag leaf length, number of grains per spike, 1000-grains weight, and grain yield respectively
Trait
Condition
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
G7
G8
G9
G10
G11
G12
G13
G14
G15
G16
G17
G18
G19
G20
G21
G22
G23

rainfed
9.67
9.33
9.67
14.67
8
8.33
16.67
15
11.33
16.67
9.33
15.67
9
18
23
16
14.33
23.33
7.67
15
14.67
27
16.33

RWL
irrigated
32.86
51.12
26.78
29.22
35.37
25.42
37.57
51.59
29.15
37.99
28.97
27.78
25.5
20.82
40.87
31.67
26.19
23.75
41
26.69
42.86
33.7
25.83

rainfed
73.97
58.8
77.88
77.81
72.12
65.05
65.61
56.94
63.07
68.86
79
73.72
86.95
67.73
60.86
84.05
83.57
82.42
65.04
76.67
73.94
51.98
75.28

RWC
irrigated
87.33
88.4
85.43
84.73
88.57
89.4
90.77
88.4
92.43
86.4
86.23
88.83
87.8
90.03
90.9
87.73
83
87.6
92.43
90.4
83.23
92.7
90.8

rainfed
86.43
90.43
91.5
92.23
91.2
92.6
91.7
91.83
91.53
89.93
91.97
93.37
91.4
92.17
89.77
90.4
90.13
91.73
89.83
92.7
89.53
92.27
91.6

TEM
irrigated
89.07
87.4
88.03
87.4
85.5
86.37
90.5
85.27
87.07
92.5
89.43
87.5
86.97
84.4
87.13
90.03
89.77
88.97
90.77
87.8
89.87
87.6
86.03

rainfed
46.97
44.22
47.38
46.01
41.98
46.23
46.94
49.22
45.05
42.64
40.5
40.74
49.16
48.24
48.32
50.33
52.73
48.16
49.71
49.73
41.43
41.13
48.99

RCC
irrigated
43.95
47.41
51.43
47.66
47.9
50.71
48.36
51.05
48.08
47.01
44.88
42.21
49.93
48.65
50.8
51.52
45.86
47.05
47.9
46.49
39.8
40.35
47.8

SL (cm)
rainfed
irrigated
11.78
11
11.67
10.22
11.22
10.22
11
10.89
11.33
10.44
9.1
10.66
11.55
12.67
11
10.55
9.89
10.33
8.78
8.1
9.55
9.22
9.66
8.1
11.33
11
8.66
10.22
9.89
11.78
9.44
9.89
10.78
11.11
11.11
10.55
9.1
10.77
12.31
11.33
9.66
10.44
10.33
10.22
9
9.11

FLL (cm)
rainfed
irrigated
24.66
23.33
22.22
20.11
23.11
21.22
21.89
24.22
23.33
25.77
19.66
22.11
21.22
24.11
21.55
24
19
23.55
19.44
16.89
16.88
20.33
16.11
19.33
23.55
23.77
18.55
23.66
19.11
20
19
20.55
21.11
23.55
23.11
25.33
21.22
25.55
24.44
23.66
21.99
21.11
20.44
20.67
19.22
21.44

NGS
rainfed
irrigated
37.6
35.8
38.2
37.8
40
46.8
38.14
44.54
26.46
49.66
42.8
36.26
49.06
46.74
41.14
42.54
48.86
47.14
31
31.14
43.86
33.66
38.14
40.66
48.86
47.54
44.74
32.74
41
37.06
34.94
30.6
34.54
39.26
42.66
38.46
38.66
39
44.14
37.86
17
24.26
26
32.8
35.14
32.74

GW (gr)
rainfed
irrigated
31.33
34.67
28
41
32
36
33.33
32.33
37.5
48.67
35.33
33.33
36.67
28.67
35
40
39
29
41
32
39.33
35.33
28.33
33
41
36
37.33
30.33
31.83
40.67
25.67
41.33
32
38.67
40
34.33
36
37.33
34.67
41
36.5
31
33
43
35.5
42.67

Yield (gr)
rainfed irrigated
4.425
4.81
3.536
3.90
4.898
5.27
4.326
4.68
4.739
5.21
4.549
4.79
4.635
5.12
4.683
5.55
4.537
4.59
4.314
5.34
3.91
4.16
4.063
4.53
4.938
5.32
5.215
5.22
4.825
4.99
4.061
4.35
4.704
4.89
4.557
5.49
4.703
5.29
4.401
4.74
2.912
3.57
3.701
4.12
4.549
5.47

Table 6. Ranks mean ( ), standard deviation of ranks (SD) and rank sum (RS) of agro-morphological and physiological characteristics of drought tolerance.
Genotypes
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
G7
G8
G9
G10
G11
G12
G13
G14
G15
G16
G17
G18
G19
G20
G21
G22
G23

RWL
7
5
8
11
2
3
18
13
9
19
6
15
4
20
21
16
10
22
1
14
12
23
17

RWC
10
21
6
7
13
17
16
22
19
14
5
12
1
15
20
2
3
4
18
8
11
23
9

TEM
1
8
11
19
9
21
14
16
12
5
17
23
10
18
3
7
6
15
4
22
2
20
13

RCC
12
17
11
15
19
14
13
5
16
18
23
22
6
9
8
2
1
10
4
3
20
21
7

SL
2
3
7
10
6
20
4
9
14
22
17
16
5
23
13
18
11
8
19
1
15
12
21

FLL
1
7
6
9
4
15
12
10
20
16
22
23
3
21
18
19
13
5
11
2
8
14
17

NGS
16
13
11
15
21
7
1
9
3
20
6
14
2
4
10
18
19
8
12
5
23
22
17

GW
20
22
18
15
6
12
8
13
5
2
4
21
1
7
19
23
17
3
10
14
9
16
11

YS
14
22
3
16
5
12
9
8
13
17
20
18
2
1
4
19
6
10
7
15
23
21
11

YP
13
22
7
16
9
14
10
1
17
4
20
18
5
8
11
19
12
2
6
15
23
21
3

ISI
9
18
4
13
6
15
2
7
11
20
19
21
1
12
14
17
10
5
8
3
23
22
16

9.55
14.36
8.36
13.27
9.09
13.64
9.73
10.27
12.64
14.27
14.45
18.45
3.64
12.55
12.82
14.55
9.82
8.36
9.09
9.27
15.36
19.55
12.91

SD
6.31
7.43
4.20
3.61
6.14
5.22
5.61
5.64
5.43
7.17
7.53
3.83
2.77
7.37
6.27
7.31
5.53
5.89
5.68
7.02
7.47
3.78
5.30

RS
15.86
21.80
12.57
16.88
15.23
18.86
15.33
15.91
18.06
21.44
21.98
22.29
6.40
19.91
19.09
21.86
15.35
14.25
14.77
16.29
22.84
23.32
18.21

RWL, RWC, TEM, RCC, SL, FLL, NGS, GW, YS, YP and ISI indicate; relative water loss, relative water content, leaf temperature, relative chlorophyll content, spike length, flag leaf length, number of grains per spike, 1000-grains weight, stress yield, yield potential and
Integrated Selection Index, respectively.

Khosroo Ershadimanesh, Hooman Shirvani *

380

Agriculture Science Developments Vol(3), No (11), November, 2014.

References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]

[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]

Araus, J. L., Salfer, M. P., Royo, C., Serett, M. D. 2008. Breeding for yield potential and stress adaptation in cereals. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences,
27: 377-412.
Baik, B. K., Ullrich, S. E. 2008. Barley for food: Characteristics, improvement, and renewed interest. Journal of Cereal Science, 48 (2): 233-242.
Betran, F. J., Beck, D., Banziger, M., Edmeades, G. O. 2003. Genetic analysis of inbred and hybrid grain yield under stress and non-stress environments
in tropical maize. Crop Science, 43: 807-817.
Bidinger, F, R., V. Mahalakshami, and G. D. P. Rao. 1987. Assessment of drought resistance in pearel millet [Pennisetum americanum (L). leeke]. II.
Estimation of genotype response to stress. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 38: 49-59.
Boyer, JS. 1967. Leaf water potentials measured with a pressure chamber. Plant Physiology. 42: 133-137.
Byrne, P. F., Bolanos, J., Edmeades, G. O., Eaton, D. L. 1995. Grains from selection under drought versus multilocation testing in related tropical maize
populations. Crop Science, 35:63-69.
Ceccarelli, S., Grando, S. 2000. Selection environment and environmental sensitivity in barley. Euphytica, 57: 157-167.
Clarke, J. M., DePauw, R.M., Townley-Smith, TF. 1992. Evaluation of methods for quantification of drought tolerance in wheat, Crop Science. 32: 723
728.
Dencic, S., Kastori, R., Kobiljski. Duggan. 2000. Evaluation of grain yield and its components in wheat genotypes and landrace under near option and
drought conditions. Euphytica, 113: 43-52.
Erdei, L., Tari, I., Csiszar, J., Pecsvaradi, A., Horvath, F., Szabo, M., Ordog, M., Cseuz, L., Zhiponova, M., Szilak, L., Gyorgyey, L. 2002. Osmotic
stress responses of wheat species and genotypes differing in drought tolerance: some interesting genes (advices for gene hunting). Acta Biologica
Szegediensis, 46: 6365.
Farooq, S., Azam, F. 2002. Co-existence of salt and drought tolerance in Triticaceae. Hereditas, 135:205-210.
Farshadfar, E. 2012. Application of integrated selection index and rank sum for screening drought tolerant genotypes in bread wheat. International
Journal of Agriculture and Crop Sciences, 4(6):325-332.
Farshadfar, E., Elyasi, P. 2012. Screening quantitative indicators of drought tolerance in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) landraces. European Journal
of Experimental Biology, 2 (3): 577-584.
Farshadfar, E., Elyasi, P., Aghaee, M. 2012. In Vitro selection for drought tolerance in common wheat (Triticum aestivum L) genotypes by mature
embryo culture, American Journal Sciences Research. 48: 102-115.
Farshadfar, E., Sutka, J. 2002. Multivariate analysis of drought tolerance in wheat substitution lines. Cereal Research Communications, 31: 33-39.
Fernandez, G. CJ. 1992. Effective selection criteria for assessing plant stress tolerance. In: Kuo CG, ed. Adaptation of Food Crops to Temperature and
Water Stress. Shanhua: Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center, Taiwan, 93-410, 257270.
Fischer, R. A., Maurer, R. 1978. Drought resistance in spring wheat genotypes. . Grain yields responses. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research,
29: 897912.
Gavuzzi, P., Rizza, F., Palumbo, M., Campanile, R. G., Ricciardi, GL., Borghi, B. 1997. Evaluation of field and laboratory predictors of drought and heat
tolerance in winter cereals. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 77:523-531.
Gupta, N. K., Gupta, S., Kumar, A. 2001. Effect of water stress on physiological attributes and their relationships with growth and yield of wheat
genotypes at different stages. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 186: 55-62.
Halder, K. P., Burrage, S. W. 2003. Drought stress effects on water relations of rice grown in nutrient film technique. Science Alert: Pakistan Journal of
Biological Sciences, 6: 441-444.
Khalili, M., Naghavi, M. R., Pour Aboughadareh, A. R, Talebzadeh, J. 2012. Evaluating of Drought Stress Tolerance based on selection indices in spring
canola genotypes (Brassica napus L.). Japanese Agricultural Standard, 4(11):78-85.
Khanna-Chopra, R., Selote, D. S. 2007. Acclimation to drought stress generates oxidative stress tolerance in drought-resistant than susceptible wheat
genotype under field conditions. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 60: 276-283.
Khodadadi, M., Fotokian, M. H., Miransari, M. 2011. Genetic diversity of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes based on cluster and principal
component analyses for breeding strategies, Australian Journal of Crop Science, 5(1): 17-24.
Krause, G. H, Weis, E. 1991. Chlorophyll fluorescence and photosynthesis: the basis. Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology,
42: 313-349.
Kutlu, I., Kinaci, G. 2010. Evaluation of drought resistance indicates for yield and its components in three Triticale Genotypes. Journal of Tekirdag
Agricultural Faculty, 7(2): 95-103.
Lichtenhaler, H. K. 1996. Photosynthesis and high light stress. Journal of Plant Physiology, 148: 4-14.
Lopez, CM. L., Takahashi, H., Yamazaki, S. 2002. Plant-water relations of kidney bean plants treated with NaCl and foliarly applied glycinebetaine.
Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 188: 7380.
Merah, O. 2001. Potential importance of water status traits for durum wheat improvement under Mediterranean conditions. Journal of Agricultural
Science, 137: 139-145.
Rajaram, S., Van Ginkle, M. 2001. Mexico, 50 years of international wheat breeding, Bonjean AP, Angus WJ, (Eds.), The World Wheat Book: A
History of Wheat Breeding. Lavoisier Publishing, Paris, France. 579-604.
Rajarm, S. 2001. Prospects and promise of wheat breeding in the 21st century. Euphytica, 119 (1-2): 3-15.
Rathjen, A.J. 1994. The biological basis of genotype environment interaction: its definition and management. Proceedings of the Seventh Assembly of
the Wheat Breeding Society of Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
Richards, R. A. 1996. Defining selection criteria to improve yield under drought. Plant Growth Regulation, 20:157-166.
Rosielle, A. A., Hamblin, J. 1981. Theoretical aspects of selection for yield in stress and non-stress environment. Crop Science, 21: 943-946.
Sairam, R. K., Saxena, D.C. 2000. Oxidative stress and Antioxidants in wheat genotypes: Possible mechanism of water stress tolerance. Journal of
Agronomy and Crop Science, 184: 55-61.
Turner, N. C. 1986. Crop water deficit: A decade of progress. Advances in Agronomy, 39:1-51.
Yan, W., Kang, M. S. 2003. Biplot Analysis: A graphical Tool for Breeders, Geneticists and Agronomist, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 313.