Nonparametric stability analysis for disease properties of common bunt in wheat

Document Type : Research paper

Authors

1 Dryland Agricultural Research Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (ARREO), Maragheh, Iran.

2 Department of Plant Protection, University College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran.

3 Department of Plant Protection, Kurdistan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Sanandaj, Iran.

4 Dryland Agricultural Research Institute, Sararood Campus, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (ARREO), Kermanshah, Iran.

5 Department of Plant Production and Genetics, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Maragheh, Maragheh, Iran.

Abstract

Common bunt, also known as stinking smuts or stinking smut, causes a considerable decrease in the yield performance and quality of both winter and spring kinds of wheat. This research aimed to identify the stability properties of resistance to common bunt among 150 wheat genotypes using three measurements, disease severity (DS), coefficient of infection (CI), and infection type (IT). Field trials were conducted in three locations, Maragheh, Kermanshah, and Kurdistan during 2018-2020. Stability analysis was performed via fourteen nonparametric stability statistics. Results showed that genotypes G38 and G63 were the most favorable genotypes based on nonparametric stability statistics as well as high disease resistance according to DS, CI, and IT measurements. The circular dendrograms of DS, CI, and IT, classified wheat genotypes into ten clusters whereas cluster II must be considered based on DS and stability while for simultaneous selection of stable as well as resistant genotypes based on IT, cluster IX following cluster X must be regarded. The simultaneous selection of the most stable, as well as most resistant genotypes based on CI, was not possible. The first factor separated the S3, S6, Fox, and MR as well as DS from the other methods in the plot of factor analysis while in the CI plot, the first factor separated the methods NS1, NS2, and MR from the other methods and in IT, the first factor separates the IT as well as MR and Fox from the other methods and illustrated dynamic stability concept. The Fox and MR methods can be used for stability analysis because they are consistently related to resistance and the dynamic stability concept.

Keywords

References

Akcura M., and Akan K. (2018). Assessment of the reactions of pure lines selected from Turkish bread wheat landraces against bunt disease (Tilletia foetida) with the GGE-biplot method. Plant Genetics and Resource, 16: 325-333.
Al-Maaroof E. M., Ali R. M., Mahmood H. A., and Aziz T. M. (2016). Searching for resistance sources to wheat common bunt disease and efficiency of Bt genes against Tilletia tritici and T. laevis populations. Agriculture Forestry, 61: 175-186.
Aujla S. S., Sharma I., and Singh B. B. (1989). Rating scale for identifying wheat varieties resistant to Neovossia indica (Mitra) Mundkur. Indian Phytopathology, 42: 161-162
Dariaee A., Biglar H. G., and Haghparast R. (2006). Identification of new wheat common bunt pathotypes (Tilletia laevis Kuhn.). Communication in Agriculture and Applied Biological Science, 71: 1093-1101.
Dehghani H., Moghaddam M., Bihamta M. R., Sabaghnia N., and Mohammadi R. (2013). Biplot analysis of diallel data in strip rust of wheat. Australasian Plant Pathology, 42: 601-608.
El-Naimi M., Toubia-Rahme H., and Mamluk O. F. (2000). Organic seed-treatment as a substitute for chemical seed-treatment to control common bunt of wheat. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 106: 433-437.
Flores F., Moreno M. T., and Cubero J. I. (1998). A comparison of univariate and multivariate methods to analyze environments. Field Crop Research, 56: 271-286.
Fox P. N., Skovmand B., Thompson B. K., Braun H. J., and Cormier R. (1990). Yield and adaptation of hexaploid spring triticale. Euphytica, 47: 57-64.
Gauch H. G., Piepho H. P., and Annicchiarico P. (2008). Statistical analysis of yield trials by AMMI and GGE: further considerations. Crop Sciene, 48: 866-889.
Gaudet D. A., Lu Z. X., Leggett F., Puchalski B., and Laroche A. (2007). Compatible and incompatible interactions in wheat involving the Bt-10 gene for resistance to Tilletia tritici, the common bunt pathogen. Phytopathology, 97: 1397-1405.
Huehn M. (1979). Beitrage zur erfassung der phanotypischen stabilitat. EDV Med Biol, 10: 112-117.
Huehn M. (1996). Non-parametric analysis of genotype×environment interactions by ranks. In: Kang M. S., and Gauch H. G. (Eds.), Genotype by environment interaction. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 213-228
Lunzer M., Dumalasová V., Pfatrisch K., Buerstmayr H., and Grausgruber H. (2023). Common bunt in organic wheat: unravelling infection characteristics relevant for resistance breeding. Frontiers in Plant Science, 14: 1264458.
Madden L. V., Paul P. A., and Lipps P. E. (2007). Consideration of nonparametric approaches for assessing genotype-by-environment (G×E) interaction with disease severity data. Plant Disease, 91: 891-900.
Madenova A., Sapakhova Z., Bakirov S., Galymbek K., Yernazarova G., Kokhmetova A., and Keishilov Z. (2021). Screening of wheat genotypes for the presence of common bunt resistance genes. Saudi Journal of Biological Science, 28: 2816-2823.
Mamluk O. F., and Van Slageren M. W. (1993). Resistance to common bunt, yellow rust, leaf rust Septoria tritici blotch in wild einkorn and wild emmer wheat. Phytopathology Mediterranean, 32: 14-19.
Mardoukhi V., Torabi M., and Patpour M. (2005). Reactions of some Irrigated Commercial Wheat Cultivars to Common Bunt Disease Caused by Tilletia laevis. Seed and Plant Journal,21: 617-629.
McNeal F. H., Konzak C. F., Smith E. P., Tate W. S., and Russell T. S. (1971). A uniform system for recording and processing cereal research data. USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Washington, D.C, ARS, 34-121.
Mohammadi N., Safavi S. A., Pouralibaba H. R., Afshari F., Yassaie M., Roustaie M., and Atahoseini S. M. (2023). Screening of dryland bread wheat genotypes against yellow rust through greenhouse and multi-environmental trials. Journal of Crop Protection, 12(1): 43-53.
Pathan A. K., and Park R. F. (2007). Evaluation of seedling and adult plant resistance to stem rust in European wheat cultivars. Euphytica, 155: 87-105.
Ren Z., Zhang W., Wang M., Gao H., Shen H., Wang C., Liu T., Chen W., and Gao L. (2021). Characteristics of the infection of Tilletia laevis Kühn (syn. Tilletia foetida (Wallr.) Liro.) in compatible wheat. Plant Pathology Journal, 37: 437-445.
Russell B. W., and Mills D. (1993). Electrophoretic karyotypes of Tilletia caries, T. controversa, and their F1 progeny: further evidence for conspecific status. Molecular Plant-Microbe Interaction, 6: 66-74.
Sabaghnia N. (2012). Multivariate statistical analysis of genotype×environment interaction in multi-environment trials of breeding programs. Agriculture Forestry, 56: 19-38.
Sabaghnia N. (2015). Identification of the most stable genotypes in multi-environment trials by using nonparametric methods. Acta Agriculture Slovenica, 105: 103-110.
Sabaghnia N. (2016). Nonparametric statistical methods for analysis of genotype×environment interactions in plant pathology. Australasian Plant Pathology, 45: 571-580.
Singh A., Knox R. E., DePauw R. M., Singh A. K., Cuthbert R. D., Kumar S., and Campbell H. L. (2016). Genetic mapping of common bunt resistance and plant height QTL in wheat. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 129: 243-256.
Thennarasu K. (1995). On certain non-parametric procedures for studying genotype–environment interactions and yield stability. Ph.D. Thesis, P.J. School, IARI, New Delhi.
Yan W., Hunt L. A., Sheng Q., and Szlavnics Z. (2000). Cultivar evaluation and mega‐environment investigation based on the GGE biplot. Crop Science, 40(3): 597-605.
Yao Z., Qin D., Chen D., Liu C., Chen W., Liu T., Liu B., and Gao L. (2019). Development of ISSR-derived SCAR marker and SYBR green I real-time PCR method for detection of teliospores of Tilletia laevis Kühn. Scientific Reports, 9: 17651.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 10 October 2023
  • Revise Date: 07 November 2023
  • Accept Date: 25 November 2023

Share

How to cite

Statistics