4.5 Article

Genetic potential to improve seed and forage yield simultaneously in smooth bromegrass under water deficit conditions

期刊

EUPHYTICA
卷 214, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10681-018-2121-7

关键词

Clonal evaluation; Drought; Seed yield; Smooth bromegrass

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study was conducted to assess genetic potential of smooth bromegrass for water stress and to identify the association among different seed and forage production related traits. Thirty-six genotypes were clonally propagated and evaluated in the field under two moisture environments (normal irrigation and water stress) during 2013-2015. High variation was observed among genotypes for all of the measured traits. Water stress had negative effects on seed yield and its components and reduced genotypic variation of measured traits. On average, water stress reduced seed and forage yield by 38 and 14%, respectively. Genetic coefficient of variation for seed yield and its components was higher under stress, providing opportunities for a greater selection differential. The estimates of heritability were higher in normal condition than water stress condition for all of the evaluated traits, which is advantageous for successful selection. Moreover, the majority of seed yield components had higher heritability estimates than seed yield. The higher heritability estimates of some seed yield components, compared to SYP, suggests a potential for indirect selection. The results showed that selection for both forage and seed yield is possible simultaneously in normal irrigation as well as in water stress environment. Genotypes 7, 8, 26 and 27 had high forage yield, while genotypes 23 and 27 had high seed yield under both normal irrigation and water stress condition. Three genotypes ranked among the top three for both seed and forage yield and under both normal irrigation and water stress condition. They are promising parents for further use in developing improved cultivars by cross-breeding.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据