Evaluation of Yield and Yield Components of Different Millet Genotypes Under Two Irrigation Regimes

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

• S Mashayekhi
• Gh. R Khajoei-nejad
• Gh Mohammadinejad

Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman

10.22067/gsc.v14i1.34969

Abstract

Introduction
Drought stress is the most important factor limiting plant growth throughout the world so that the slowdown in drought is far more than other environmental stress (1). Following wheat, rice, maize, barley millet and sorghum, are the world's most important annual crops.
Materials and Methods
In order to evaluate the yield and yield components of millet genotypes and determine the most tolerant genotype based on indicators of drought tolerance a field experiment was conducted at the research farm of the Faculty of Agronomy of the University of Shahid Bahounar university of Kerman-Iran in 2012. The experiment was carried out as split plot based on the randomized complete block design with three replications. Main plots were dedicated to drought, water levels (50 and 100% field capacity) and in the subplots millet cultivars(including Common Millet: Pishahang cultivar, Rabor and Golbaf ecotypes and common promising lines P69, P101, as well as foxtail millet, Bastan cultivar and foxtail promising lines S79, S81, S85 lines) were planted. Irrigation levels was calculated based on the cumulative evaporation from class A evaporation pan. First irrigation was done after 50 mm evaporation and second was done after 100 mm evaporation. The irrigation method was conventional (flooding).
Results and Discussion
Analysis of variance showed significant difference for tiller number among the genotypes and stress reduced number of tillers. Foxtail millet such as Bastan cultivar, S79, S81 and S85 lines had the maximum number of tillers, while common millet genotypes including: Rabor ecotype and P69 had the lowest number of tillers in drought stress conditions.
Analysis of variance showed significant differences between genotypes in terms of plant height. Foxtail millet showed higher plant height than common millet, among the under studied genotypes, S85 line had the highest plant height whilst Golbaf and Rabor had the lowest plant height. Different irrigation regimes showed highly significant effect in plant height. Result indicated that there is no significant interaction of each millet genus by irrigation treatment in plant height, while foxtail and common millet showed significant difference in interaction by irrigation treatments.
Different genotypes had different number of branches. Among the genotypes in this experiment, the number of branches in Bastan was the highest and lowest was belonged to S85 line under drought stress, respectively. Effects of water stress also showed a significant decrease in the number of branches. Analysis of variance showed that the interaction of genotype by irrigation treatments on the number of branches was significant.
Drought caused a reduction in the number of panicle and the result showed there was no significant difference between genotypes. Among genotypes in this experiment, Rabor ecotype had the highest number of panicle in terms of stress and foxtail millet including: Bastan cultivar, S79, S81 and S85 had minimum number of panicle in drought stress conditions. Irrigation in genotype interaction was significant on a number of panicle.
Results showed that there was a significant difference between genotypes for harvest index. Among genotypes in this study, S79 and Golbaf genotypes had the lowest harvest index under drought stress. Drought stress effect on harvest index showed a significant decrease, also interaction effect was significant.
Analysis of variance showed significant differences between different genotypes of millet based on seed weight. Among genotypes in these experiments, Golbaf and Bastan had the highest seed weight while genotype, S79, S81 and S85 with no statistically significant difference had the lowest seed weight, respectively. There was no significant interaction between genotype by irrigation. Seed weight reduction due to drought stress has been reported in several studies (3). Analysis of variance showed a significant difference between millet genotypes about biological yield. Among genotypes in this study, genotype P101 showed highest biological yield in drought stress conditions but Rabor and S79, showed lowest biological yield in drought stress condition. Drought stress effect on biological yield showed a significant decrease. Genotype by irrigation interaction on biological yield was significant. Biological yield loss due to drought stress has been reported in several studies (2).
Mean productivity (MP), geometric mean productivity (GMP), stress tolerance index (STI) and performance index (YI), by a significant positive correlation with grain yield in stress and non-stress conditions were the best indicators for identification of superior varieties. Using mentioned Indices, a genotype with high yield potential was Golbaf as the most tolerant ecotypes to drought stress, S79 was more sensitive to drought than the other genotypes More details is described in the text as it is original.

Conclusions
Based on this experiment it can be concluded that at drought condition cultivation of common millet has advantage than foxtail millet. Among common millet genotypes Golbaf ecotype showed the highest yield potential and relative tolerance to drought stress. It can be introduced as a promising line in breeding programs for drought tolerance studies.

Keywords

• Drought stress
• Grain yield, Millet
• Tolerance indicators

20.1001.1.20081472.1395.14.1.10.7

---

References

1. Abolhassani, K., and Saeidi, G. 2006. Evaluation of drought tolerance of safflower lines based on tolerance and sensitivity indices to water stress. Science and Technology of Agriculture and Natural 10: 407-419.

2. Azizinia, S., Ghanadha, M. R., Zali, A. A., Yazdi Samadi, B., and Ahmadi, A. 2005. Evaluation and assess of quantitative traits related to drought tolerance in wheat. Agricultural Sciences 36: 281-292.

3. Bayat, A. A., Sepehri, A., Ahmadvand, G., and Dorri, H. R. 2010. Effect of water deficit stress on yield and yield components of pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) genotypes. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences 12 (1): 42-54. (in Persian with English abstract).

4. Bibi, A., Sadaqat, H., Akram, H. M., Khan, T. M., and Usman, B. F. 2010. Physiological and agronomic responses of sudangrass to water stress. Agriciculturar Research 48 (3).

5. Bidinger, F. R., Mahalakshmi, V., and Rao, G. D. P. 1987. Assessment of drought resistance in pearl millet (Pennisetum americanum L. Leeke.). II. Estimation of genotype response to stress. Aust. J. Agric. Res 38: 49-59.

6. Blum, A. 2005. Drought resistance, water-use efficiency, and yield potential- are they compatible, dissonant, or mutually exclusive Australian. Agricultural Research 56: 1159-1168.

7. Blum, A. 2011. Plant breeding for water-limited environments. Springer 258 PP.

8. Bouslama, M., and Schapaugh, W. T. 1984. Stress tolerance in soybean. I: Evaluation of three screening techniques for heat and drought tolerance. Crop Science 24: 933-937.

9. Bruck, H., Payne, W. A., and Sattelmacher, B. 2000. Effects of phosphorus and water supply on yield, transpiration, water-use efficiency and carbon isotope discrimination of pearl millet. Crop Science 40: 120-125.

10. Conover, D. G., and Sovonick, S. A. 1989. Influence of deficits on the water relations and growth of Echinochloa turneriana, Echinochloa crus-gali,and Pennisetum americanum. Aus. Journal Plant Physiol 16 (3): 291-304.

11. Emam, Y., Ranjbari, A., and Bahrani, M. J. 2006. Evaluation of yield and yield components in wheat cultivars under post-anthesis drought stress. J. Agric. Sci. Tech. Nat. Research 11: 317-328.

12. Fernandez, G. C. J. 1992. Effective selection criteria for assessing stress tolerance. In:Kuo, C. G. (ed.). Proceedings of the International Symposium on Adaptation of Vegetables and Other Food Crops in Temperature and Water Stress. AVRDC Publication, Tainan, Taiwan. pp 257-270.

13. Fischer, R. A., and Maurer, R. 1978. Drought resistance in spring wheat cultivars. I: grain yield response. Aust. J. Agric. Research 29: 897-912.

14. Foulkes, M. J., Sylvester-Bradley, R., Weightman, R., and Snape, J. W. 2007 Identifying physiological traits associated with improved drought resistance in winter wheat. Field Crops Research 103: 11-24.

15. Garavandi, M., Farshadfar, M., and Kahrizi, D. 2010. Evaluation of drought tolerance in bread wheat advanced genotypes in field and laboratory conditions. Seed and Plant Improvment Journal 26: 233-252.

16. Gavuzzi, P., Rizza, F., Palumbo, M., Campaline, R. G., Ricciardi, G. L., and Borghi, B. 1997. Evaluation of field and laboratory predictors of drought and heat tolerance in winter cereals. Can. Journal Plant Science 77: 523-531.

17. Goldani, M., and Rezvani Moghadam, P. 2005. Effect of planting date on yield and yield components of land and water, and dry peas in Mashhad. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Research 2: 12.

18. Gonzalez, A., Bermjo, V., and Gimeno, B. S. 2010. Effect of different physiological traits on grain yield in barley grown under irrigated and terminal water deficit conditions. Journal Agric. Sciences 148: 319-328.

19. Guinta, F., Motzo, R., and Eidda, M. D. 1993. Effect of drought on yield and yield components of durum wheat and triticale in a mediterranean environment. Field Crops Research 33: 399-409.

20. Hajhassani Asl, A., Moradi Agham, A., Ali ababi frahan, H., and Rassei Far, M. 2011. Three forage yield and its componts under water condition on delay in khoy zone (Iran). Environmental Biology 5 (5): 847-852.

21. Hashemi Dezfouli A. 1994. Growth and yield of safflower as affected by drought stress. Crop Research. Hisar 7 (3): 313-319.

22. Khodabandeh, N. 2003. Cereals. Tehran University Press.

23. Kirigwi, F., Van M., Ginkel, M., Trethowan, R., Sears, R. G., Rajaram, S., and Paulsen, G. M. 2004. Evaluation of selection strategies for wheat adaptation across water regimes. Euphytica 135: 361-371.

24. Koocheki, A. R., Yazdansepas, A., and Nikkhah, H. R. 2007. Effects of terminal drought on grain yield and some morphological traits in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes. Crop Science 8 (1): 14-29.

25. Kumari, S. 1998. The effects of soil moisture stress on the development and yield of millet. Agronomy Journal 57: 480-487.

26. Laribi, B., Bettaieb, I., Kouki, K., Sahli, A., Mougou, A., and Brahim, M. 2009. Water deficit effects on caraway (Carum carvi L.) growth, essential oils and fatty acids composition. Industrial Crops and Proudcts 30: 372-379.

27. Ludlow, M. M., and Muchow, R. C. 1990. A critical evaluations of traits for improving crop yields in water -limited environments.Adv. in Agron 43: 107-153.

28. Mahalakshmi, V., and Bidinger, F. R. 1985. Flowering response of pearl millet to water stress during panicle development. Annals of applied biology 106: 571-578.

29. Mahalakshmi, V., and Bidinger, F. R. 1986.Water deficit during panicle development in pearl millet: Yield compensation by tillers. J. Agric. Science. Camb 106: 113-119.

30. Marc, E. N., Roslyn, M. G., and Dalling, M. J. 1985. Effect of post-anthesis drought on cell division and starch accumulation in developing wheat grains. Ann. Bot 55: 433-444.

31. Mohammadi, R., Armion, M., Kahrizi, D., and Amri, A. 2010. Efficiency of screening techniques for evaluating durum wheat genotypes under mild drought conditions. Int. Journal Plant Prod 4: 1735-8043.

32. Mousavi, Gh., Mirhadi, M., Siadat, E., Noormohamami, Gh., and Darvish, F. 2009. The effect of water stress and nitrogen fertilization on yield and water use efficiency of forage millet. Modern Agriculture 15: 114-101.

33. Nakhoda, B., Hashemi Dezfouli, A., and Banisadr, N. 2000. Effects of water stress on yield of forage millet forage quality properties Notrifid. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 4: 701-712.

34. Nazarli, H., and Zadashti, M. R. 2010. The Effect of Drought Stress and Super Absorbent Polymer (A 200) on Agronomical Traits of Sunflower (Helianthus Annuus L.) under Field Condition. Cercetari Agronomice in Moldova 3 (143): 4-14.

35. Nouroz poor, Gh., and Rezvani Moghadam, P. 2005. Effects of different irrigation and plant density on yield and yield components of medicinal plants Nigella. Iranian journal of agricultural research 2: 305-314.

36. Omidi Ardali, Gh., and Behrani, M. 2011. Effects of drought stress, the amount and timing of nitrogen application on yield and yield components of sunflower growth stages. Science and Technology of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Water and Soil Sciences 55: 199-207.

37. Osborne, S. L., Schepers, D. D., Francis, J. S., and Schlemmer, M. R. 2002. Use of Spectral radiance to estimate in season biomass and grain yield in nitrogen and water stress on cron. Crop Sciene 42: 165-171.

38. Pan, X., Wang, G., Yang, H., and Wei, X. 2003. Effect of water defficit on whitin-polo variability in growth and grain yield of spring wheat in northwest china. Fiele Crops Research 80: 195-205.

39. Pireivatlou, A. S., Dehdar Masjedlou, B., and Ramiz, T. A. 2010. Evaluation of yield potential and stress adaptive trait in wheat genotypes under post anthesis drought stress conditions. Afric. Journal. Agric. Research 5: 2829-2836.

40. Plein, W. A., Wells, R., Little, G., Edmisten, K. L., and Wilcut, J. W. 2003. Glyphosate and water-stress effects on fruiting and carbohydrates in glyphosate- resistant cotton. Crop Science 43: 879-885.

41. Rezaei Chianeh, A., Zahtab Salmasi, S., Ghasemi Golazani, K., and Delazar, E. 2012. The effects of irrigation on yield and yield components of three landraces fennel. Agricultural and sustainable production 4: 57-70.

42. Richards, R., Rebetzke, G. J., Condon, A. G., and Van Herwaarden, A. F. 2002. Breeding opportunities for increasing the efficiency of water use and crop yield in temperate cereals. Crop Science 42: 111-121.

43. Rosales-Serna, R., and Kohashi-Shibata, J. 2003. Biomass distribution, maturity acceleration and yield in drought- stressed common bean cultivars. Field Crops Research 85: 203-211.

44. Rossielle, A., and Hamblin, A. J. 1981. Theorical aspects of selection for stress and non-stress environment. Crop Science 21: 1441-1446.

45. Setter, T. L., Brian, A., Lannigan, F., and Melkonian, J. 2001. Loss of kernel set due to water deficit and shade in maize: carbohydrate supplies, abscissic acid and cytokinins. Crop Sciencem 41: 1530-1540.

46. Sinaki, J. M., Majidi Heravan, E., Shirani Rad, A. H., Normohamadi, G., and Zarei, G. 2007. The effects of water deficit during growth stages of canola (Brassica napus L.). American-Eurasian Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Science 2 (4): 417-422.

47. Sio-Se Mardeh, A., Ahmadi, A., Poustini, K., and Mohammadi, V. 2006. Evaluation of drought resistance indices under various environmental conditions. Field Crops Research 98: 222-229.

48. Talebi, R., Fayaz, F., and Naji, A. M. 2009. Effective selection criteria for assessing drought stress tolerance in durum wheat (Triticum durum Desf.). Gen. Appl. Plant. Physiol 35: 64-74.

49. Westage, M. E., and Boyer, J. S. 1998. Reproduction at low silk and pollen water potentials in maize. Crop Science 26: 951-956.