Studies On Performance Of Wheat Varieties Under Saline Conditions

Persian Gulf Crop Protection, 3(1): 5-17 6

Persian Gulf Crop Protection Available online on: www.cropprotection.ir

ISSN: 2251-9343 (online) Volume 3 Issue 1, March 2014

Pages 6-17

Studies On Performance Of Wheat Varieties Under Saline Conditions

Shahbaz Khan Baloch1*, Muhammad Nawaz Kandhro1, Akaram.S.S.Muhammed1, Farid Akbar

Baloch2, Sana Ullah Baloch2, Khalid Abdalla Osman3 and Suliman A. Ibrahim Ali3

Department of Agronomy, Lasbela University of Agriculture, Water and Marine Science, Uthal, [email protected]) mail:-eCorresponding author *( Baluchistan, Pakistan,

Department of Agronomy Sindh Agriculture University, Tandojam, Pakistan.. -2 3- Agricultural Research Corporation, Wad Medani, Sudan

Abstract: In order to assess the effect of salinity on the performance of wheat varieties the experiment was conducted at Nuclear Institute of Agriculture (NIA) Tandojam during Rabi 2011-12 in a three replicated randomized complete block design (Factorial). Five wheat varieties (Kiran-95, Sarsabz-86, NIA Sunhari-2010, LU-26 and Bhittai-2004) were tested against two EC levels (2.82 dSm-1 and 5.92 dSm-1). The results revealed that plant height, tillers m-2, biological yield and grain yield differed highly significantly (P<0.01) by EC levels, varieties and interaction. Moreover, spike length, spikelet’s spike-1, grains spike-1, seed index (1000 grain weight) and harvest index had highly significant effects (P<0.01) for EC levels and varieties whereas non-significant (P>0.05) effects for interaction. The LSD test showed that differences between EC levels, varieties and interaction were highly significant at 1.0% level. The data further indicated that EC levels of 2.82 dSm-1 resulted maximum; 103.69 cm plant height, 402.47 tillers m-2, 12.301 cm spike length, 14.637 spikelet’s spike-1, 44.801 grains spike-1, 47.527 g seed index, 13653 kg ha-1 biological yield, 6829 kg ha-1 grain yield and 49.494% harvest index as compared to plots sown on EC levels of 5.92 dSm-1. Among varieties, LU-26 was superior with 90.053 cm plant height, 358.17 tillers m-2, 11.893 cm spike length, 14.370 spikelet’s spike-1, 44.445 grains spike-1, 51.067 g seed index, 12988 kg ha-1 biological yield, 6468.7 kg ha-1 grain yield and 49.648% harvest index. Among varieties LU-26 ranked 1st in all traits studied particularly grain yield (6468.70 kg ha-1) followed by Sarsabz (6412.20 kg ha-1), Kiran-95 (6036.70 kg ha-1), Bhittai-2004 (5664.30 kg ha-1) and NIA Sunhari-2010 (5381.30 kg ha-1). However, it is concluded that interaction of wheat variety LU-26 x EC level 2.82 dSm-1 was found an optimum interaction which produced maximum grain yield (7352.00 kg ha-1). Key Words: Wheat, varieties, salinity, growth, yield


Introduction Pakistan is among top ten wheat producing countries of the world (Khan et al., 2003), but the average yield of the wheat is much lower than their potential yield. On the other hand, wheat requirements of the country are increasing due to rapid increase in population. According to Pakistan Economic Survey 2011-12, the contribution of wheat to value addition in agriculture is 12.5, while it contributes to GDP is 2.6 percent (GOP, 2012). Wheat yields in the country are 2714 kg ha-1 (2011-2012) as against 4762 kg ha-1 in China, world average is 3086 Kg ha-1, 3018 kg ha-1 in the USA and 2801 kg ha-1 in India. The area under wheat cultivation in Pakistan during 2011-12 was 8666 thousand hectares, showing a decrease of 2.6 percent over last year’s area of 8901 thousand hectares. The production of 23.5 million tons was achieved during 2011-12 showing 6.17 percent decrease over the preceding year; while the yield per hectare was 2714 kg ha-1 showing 4.2 percent decrease over the last years yield ha-1. This adverse trend in the area, grain production and yield per hectare was due to the fact that the sowing of wheat was delayed because of standing water and other climatic factors (GOP, 2012). Soil salinity is one of the most important abiotic stress and limiting factor (Koyro, 2006) for worldwide plant production. Up to 20% of the irrigated arable land in arid and semiarid regions is already salt affected and is still expanding (Muhling and Lauchli, 2003). Under salt stress, plants have to cope with stress imposed by the low external water potential and with ion toxicity due to accumulation of ions inside the plants (Romero-Aranda et al., 2006). Differences in salt tolerance exist not only among different genera and species, but also within the different organs of the same species (Ismail, 2003). Comparing the response of cultivars of one species to salinity provides a convenient and useful tool for unveiling the basic mechanisms involved in salt tolerance. Salt stress has a

different effect on carbohydrate contents. Some authors have reported carbohydrates accumulation in various plants under salinity condition (Azooz et al., 2004). On the other hand, (Mostafa, 2004) observed that at low and moderate salinity levels, sugars and consequently the total carbohydrates are decreased. Soluble protein is generally decreased in response to salinity (Abdel-Latef, 2005). It has also been reported that high salt concentration either causes an increase in the N-contents and high protein content in some glycophytic plants (Abed El- Baki, 1996) or increase in soluble proteins (Shaddad et al., 2005). The Number of N-containing compounds accumulating in plants subjected to environmental stress (Kuznetsov et al., 2007). The process of accumulation of ions such as sodium (Na+) potassium (K+), calcium (Ca2+) and magnesium (Mg2+) in plants are different and depend on variation in the external environment. The K +/Na+ ratio has been used as an index for sodium toxicity in plant tissues, because it is assumed that activity of K+ requires some enzymes (Cramer et al., 1994), and higher K+/Na+

ratio indicates less Na+ toxicity (Haroun, 2002). Salt tolerance is usually assessed as the percent biomass production in saline versus control conditions over a prolonged period of time. Dramatic differences are found between plant species. For example, after some time in 200 mm NaCl a salt-tolerant species such as sugarbeet might have a reduction of only 20% in dry weight, a moderately tolerant species such as cotton might have a 60% reduction, and a sensitive species such as soybean might be dead (Greenway and Munns, 1980). It is surprisingly difficult to quantify differences in salt tolerance between closely related species, as the growth reduction depends on the period of time over which the plants have grown in saline conditions. Yet, over short periods of time in salinity, found no differences between durum and bread wheat cultivars or between barley and triticale cultivars


(Munns et al., 1995). A number of characteristics, summarized by (Colmer et al., 2005), contribute to salt tolerance in wheat. Foremost among salt-specific traits is the ability to limit the concentration of Na+ that enters the xylem. This trait is described here by the term Na+ ‘exclusion’. In addition, genotypes can differ in tolerable Na+ concentrations in leaves, presumably due to differences in the efficiency of compartmentation in leaf vacuoles and this trait has been characterized as ‘tissue tolerance’ (Yeo and Flowers, 1983). Also of importance to salt tolerance in many grasses is an ability to accumulate Na+ in the older leaves and the leaf sheaths; i.e. compartmentalization at the whole plant level (Davenport et al., 2005). Maintaining K+ uptake and transport to growing tissues is also crucial for salt tolerance (Greenway and Munns, 1980). (Javed, 2002) concluded that more the salt tolerant genotype more is the reduction in water and osmotic potentials and less in turgor of the callus tissue; while (Mahar et al., 2003) observed high salt tolerance as well as good yield potential in landraces and reported that the yield was low than the commercially developed varieties. (Nevo and Chen, 2010) mentioned that drought and salinity are the major abiotic stresses that dramatically threaten the food supply in the world. (Ahmad et al., 2011) conducted that combined analysis of both locations during both years revealed that genotypes differed significantly for plant height, dry biomass m-2, fertile tillers plan-1, spike length, grain spike-1, 1000 seed weight and yield m-2. (Tong et al., 2012) investigated the effect of salinity in different soil layers on yield and its components of wheat and there were significant negative correlations between soil salinity and wheat yield components, especially between soil salinity and spike number per hectare. Keeping in view the facts stated above a study was carried out to evaluate the performance of wheat varieties under saline conditions.

Materials and Methods The experiment was laid out in a three replicated Randomized Complete Block Design (factorial) having net plot size of 5.0x1.2m (6.0 m2). Five commercial and upcoming wheat varieties (V1=Kiran-95, V2=Sarsabz-86, V3=NIA Sunhari-2010, V4=LU-26 and V5= Bhittai-2004) were evaluated against two soil EC levels (E.C-1=2.82 dSm-1 and E.C-2= 5.92 dSm-1). The two experimental fields with different soil structure and EC levels were selected for the experiment. At first site, the soil had EC level averagely 2.82 dSm-1; while at the second site, the average EC of the soil was 5.92 dSm-1. The recommended dose of NP fertilizers was applied, where all P (as mono ammonium phosphate) and 1/3rd of N (as urea) were applied at the time of sowing and remaining N was applied in two equal splits at first irrigation and at 2nd irrigation, respectively. The irrigations were applied according to the crop requirement and the weeding was performed by using weedicides. For recording observations on various agronomical traits, five plants in each plot were selected at random and labelled. After completion of observations on growth parameters, and when the crop reached its physiological maturity, the labelled plants were harvested manually and tied in small bundles, and were shifted to threshing yard. Threshing was performed manually; the grains were collected carefully to count and record. Procedure for recording observations: Plant height (cm): Plant height was recorded at maturity of the crop in randomly selected plants using measuring tape from bottom to tip of the spike in centimetres. Tillers m-2: Total tillers m-2 in each plot from three different locations were counted at the time of maturity and averaged. Spike length (cm): The length of all the spikes in randomly selected plants was measured in centimetres with measuring tap and average was worked out. Spikelet’s spike-1: The number of spikelets in each spike for all the randomly selected


plants in each plot was individually counted and averaged. Grains spike-1: The number of grains in each spike of the randomly selected plants was counted at the crop maturity and average was worked out. Seed index (1000 grain weight, g): For recording seed index value, 1000 grains from all the randomly selected plants in each plot was collected at random and weighed in grams. Biological yield (kg ha-1): The all the foliage and grains received from each plot was weighed and on the basis of biological yield plot-1, biological yield ha-1 was calculated in kilograms. Grain yield (kg ha-1): All the grain received from each plot was weighed and on the basis of grain yield plot-1, grain yield ha-1 was calculated in kilograms. Harvest index (%): The harvest index was calculated by using the following formula:

Grain yield (kg ha-1) Biological yield (kg ha-1)

The data were anaysed by Mstat-C following Russel and Eisensmith (1983).

Results Plant height (cm): The analysis of variance indicated that the plant height varied significantly (P<0.05) due to soil EC levels, varieties and interaction between EC levels and varieties. The plant height was significantly (P<0.05) higher (103.69 cm) in plots having soil EC level of 2.82 dSm-1 as compared to the plant height recorded in plots with soil EC level of 5.92 dSm-1. Among wheat varieties, the plant height was maximum (99.50 cm) in variety Bhitai, followed by 94.02 cm and 92.52 cm plant height noted in varieties Kiran-95 and NIA-Sunehri, respectively (Table 1). The plant height in variety Sarsabz was 90.31 cm and the minimum plant height of 90.05 cm was observed in variety LU-26. Interaction studies showed that variety Bhitai when sown in soil with lower EC level of 2.82 dSm-1 resulted in maximum plant height of 109.28 cm; while the lowest plant height of 75.39 cm was

noted in variety Sarsabz when sown in soil with higher EC level of 5.92 dSm-1. Tillers m-2: The tillers m-2 varied significantly (P<0.05) due to soil EC levels, varieties as well as by the interaction between EC levels and varieties. The tillers was significantly (P<0.05) higher (402.47 m-2) in plots having soil EC level of 2.82 dSm-1 as compared to 255 tillers m-2 recorded in plots with soil EC level of 5.92 dSm-1. in case of varierties, the tillers m-2 was maximum (358.17 m-2) in variety LU-26, closely followed by varieties Sarsabz and Kiran-95 with 357 and 349.17 tillers m-2, respectively. The tillers m-2 in variety NIA-Sunehri was 304.67 m-2 and the lowest number of tillers (274.67 m-2) was noted in variety Bhitai. Interaction studies indicated that variety Kiran-95 x EC level 2.82 dSm-1 resulted in maximum number of tillers (434.67 m-2); while the lowest tillers (217 m-2) was noted in variety Bhitai x EC level 5.92 dSm-1 (Table 2). This showed that increase in the salinity level in the experimental soil adversely affected the tillers m-2; while Kiran-95 responded appreciably to lower EC level with highest tillers m-2. Spike length (cm): The spike length influenced significantly (P<0.05) due to soil EC levels and varieties, while the effect of their interaction on spike length was non-significant (P>0.05). The spike length was significantly (P<0.05) higher (12.301 cm) in plots having soil EC level of 2.82 dSm-1 than spike length (10.255 cm) obtained in plots with EC level of 5.92 dSm-1. Among varieties, the spike length was highest (11.893 cm) in variety LU-26, followed by varieties Sarsabz and Kiran-95 with average spike length of 11.555 cm and 11.533 cm, respectively. The spike length in variety Bhitai was 11.515 cm and the lowest spike length of 9.893 cm was recorded in variety NIA-Sunehri. It was further observed that interaction of LU-26 x 2.82 dSm-1 EC level resulted in maximum spike length of 13.050 cm; while the lowest spike length of 9.18 cm was

X 100


noted in interaction of variety NIA-Sunehri x 5.92 dSm-1 EC level. This showed that increasing salinity level in the experimental soil, the spike length was simultaneously affected in inverse direction (Table 3). Spikelet’s spike-1: The analysis of variance illustrated that the differences in the spikelets spike-1 of wheat were significant (P<0.05) due to different EC levels and varieties, while the effect of their interaction on the spikelets spike-1 was non-significant (P>0.05). The results (Table 4) showed that the spikelets spike-1 was significantly higher (14.637) in plots having soil EC level of 2.82 dSm-1 than 12.032 spikelets spike-1 in plots with higher EC level of 5.92 dSm-1. Among varieties, the highest number of spikelets (14.370) spike-1 was recorded in variety LU-26, followed by varieties Sarsabz and Kiran-95 with 13.542 and 13.520 average number of spikelets spike-1, respectively (Table 4). The number of spikelets in variety Bhitai was 13.120 spike-1 and the lowest number of spikelets (12.120) spike-1 was recorded in variety NIA-Sunehri. The results further indicated that interaction of LU-26 x 2.82 dSm-1 EC level resulted in maximum number of spikelets (16.073) spike-1; while the lowest number of spikelets (12.003) spike-1 was noted in interaction of variety Bhitai x 5.92 dSm-1 EC level. Grains spike-1: The effect of EC levels and varieties on the grains spike-1 was significant (P<0.05) and non-significant (P>0.05) effect was noted due to interaction between EC levels and varieties. The grains (44.801) spike-1 was higher in plots having lower EC level of 2.82 dSm-1 when compared with the grains (36.087) plot-1 achieved from the plots with higher EC level of 5.92 dSm-1. In case of varieties, the maximum grains (44.445) spike-1 was recorded in variety LU-26, followed by varieties Sarsabz and Kiran-95 with 41.277 and 39.722 grains spike-1, respectively. The number of grains in variety Bhitai was 39.555 spike-1; while the

lowest grains (37.222) spike-1 was recorded in variety NIA-Sunehri (Table 5). The interaction of variety LU-26 x 2.82 dSm-1 EC level resulted in maximum number of grains (49.78) spike-1; while the lowest number of grains (32.110) spike-1 was noted in interaction of variety Sarsabz x 5.92 dSm-1 EC level. Seed index (1000 grains weight, g): The effect of EC levels and varieties on the seed index value was significant (P<0.05) and non-significant (P>0.05) effect was noted due to interaction between EC levels and varieties. Seed index (47.527 g) was higher in plots with lower EC level of 2.82 dSm-1 than the plots having higher EC level of 5.92 dSm-1 that resulted seed index value of 42.560 g. The results on varieties indicated that the maximum seed index (51.067 g) was recorded in variety LU-26, followed by varieties Sarsabz and Bhitai with 45.567 g and 44.150 g seed index value, respectively. The seed index in variety Kiran was 43.717 g; while the minimum seed index of 40.717 g was recorded in variety NIA-Sunehri. The interaction studies indicated that the interaction between wheat variety LU-26 and 2.82 dSm-1 EC level resulted in maximum seed index value of 53.20 g; while the lowest seed index value of 38.00 g was observed in interaction of variety NIA-Sunehri and EC level of 5.92 dSm-1. Biological yield (kg ha-1: The biological yield was significantly (P<0.05) influenced by EC levels and varieties, while non-significant (P>0.05) for EC levels x varieties interaction. The biological yield was higher (13653 kg ha-1) in plots with EC level of 2.82 dSm-1 than the plots with higher EC level of 5.92 dSm-1 where the biological yield was 10985 kg ha-1. In varieties, the maximum biological yield (12992 kg) ha-1 was recorded in variety Sarsabz, and LU-26 and Kiran-95 produced 12988 kg and 12280 kg ha-1, respectively. The biological yield in variety Bhitai was 11850 kg ha-1; while the minimum (11360 kg) ha-1 was recorded in variety NIA-Sunehri. The results further showed that


interaction of variety Sarsabz x 2.82 dSm-1 EC level resulted in maximum biological yield (14683 kg) ha-1; while the minimum biological yield (10433 kg) ha-1 was noted in interaction of variety NIA-Sunehri x 5.92 dSm-1 EC level. Grain yield (kg ha-1): The grain yield ha-1 was influenced significantly (P<0.05) due to EC levels, varieties as well as by interaction between EC levels and varieties. It is obvious from the results that the grain yield was higher (6829 kg ha-1) in plots with lower EC level (2.82 dSm-1) as compared to the plots with higher EC level of 5.92 dSm-1 where the grain yield was 51560 kg ha-1. In varieties, the maximum grain yield (6468.70 kg) ha-1 was recorded in variety LU-26, followed by varieties Sarsabz and Kiran-95 with average grain yield of 6412.20 kg and 6036.70 kg ha-1, respectively. The grain yield in variety Bhitai was 5664.30 kg ha-1; while the lowest grain yield (5381.30 kg) ha-1 was recorded in variety NIA-Sunehri. The interaction studies indicated that interaction between Sarsabz x 2.82 dSm-1 EC levels resulted in maximum grain yield (7436.70 kg) ha-1; while the minimum grain yield (4826.70 kg) ha-1 was noted in interaction of variety NIA-Sunehri x EC 5.92 dSm-1. Harvest index (%): The effect of EC levels and varieties on the harvest index was significant (P<0.05) and non-significant (P>0.05) effect was noted due to interaction between EC levels and varieties on the harvest index. The harvest index was higher (49.949 %) in plots with lower EC level of 2.82 dSm-1, as compared to the plots with higher EC level (5.92 dSm-1), which resulted harvest index of 47.125%. In case of varieties, the maximum harvest index (49.648%) was recorded in variety LU-26, followed by varieties Sarsabz and Kiran-95 with average harvest index of 49.16 and 48.932%, respectively. The harvest index in variety Bhitai was 47.663%; while the minimum harvest index of 47.283% was noted in variety NIA-Sunehri. The interaction

between variety LU-26 and 2.82 dSm-1 EC level resulted in maximum harvest index of 51.040%; while the lowest harvest index of 46.26% was observed in interaction of variety NIA-Sunehri and EC level of 5.92 dSm-1 DISCUSSION Soil salinity is a factor causing abiotic stress in plants and limiting crop yields (Koyro, 2006). Under salt stress, plants have to cope with stress imposed by the low external water potential and with ion toxicity due to accumulation of ions inside the plants (Romero-Aranda et al., 2006). The present experiment was conducted to assess the performance of wheat varieties under saline conditions. The findings of the present research indicated that growth and grain yield of wheat were significantly (P<0.05) affected by increasing EC level. Wheat sown in plots with EC levels of 2.82 dSm-1 resulted 103.69 cm plant height, 402.47 tillers m-2, 12.301 cm spike length, 14.637 spikelets spike-1, 44.801 grains spike-1, 47.527 g seed index, 13653 kg ha-1 biological yield, 6829 kg ha-1 grain yield and 49.494% harvest index. The crop sown in plots with EC levels of 5.92 dSm-1

resulted 82.88 cm plant height, 255 tillers m-2, 10.255 cm spike length, 12.032 spikelets spike-1, 36.087 grains spike-1, 42.560 g seed index, 10935 kg ha-1 biological yield, 5156 kg ha-1 grain yield and 47.125% harvest index. Variety LU-26 x EC level of 2.82 dSm-1 was considered an optimum interaction for obtaining maximum grain yield. These results are further confirmed by the findings of a number of past workers. (Shaviv et al,. 1990) suggested that nitrate, rather than ammonium, is favored as a nitrogen source for wheat particularly under salt stress conditions; while (Javed, 2002) concluded that more the salt tolerant genotype more is the reduction in water and osmotic potentials and less in turgor of the callus tissue. In a similar study, (Munns, 2002) argued that it is important to avoid treatments that induce cell plasmolysis, and to design experiments that distinguish


between tolerance of salt and tolerance of water stress. (Mahar et al., 2003) observed high salt tolerance as well as good yield potential in landraces and reported that the yield was low than the commercially developed varieties. (Ahmad et al., 2005) concluded that the flag leaf area in wheat decreased drastically due to salt stress in all the varieties and this could be a major cause for low yield. There was however, a very low linear correlation between the flag leaf area and the grain weight in pooled data for all the six wheat varieties. Wheat varieties indicated different response in relation to tolerance level against salinity level. The results reported by (Shirazi et al., 2005) indicated that the genotypes, which have the ability of enhanced K/Na discrimination, might perform better under saline conditions when sufficient potassium is applied in the rooting medium; while (Ragab et al., 2008) reported that wheat grain yield, correlated highly significantly in negative manner with hardly available water, water salinity and soil EC, while the relations were highly positive with easily available water. Same trend was attained in case of seed index under investigated soils. Moreover, (El-Hendawy et al., 2009) reported that weight and number of grains per plant and number of fertile spikes per plant were poor criteria under controlled conditions, but effective under field conditions; while (Nevo and Chen, 2010) mentioned that drought and salinity are the major abiotic stresses that dramatically threaten the food supply in the world. (Ahmad et al., 2011) conducted that combined analysis of both locations during both years revealed that genotypes differed significantly for plant

height, dry biomass m-2, fertile tillers plan-

1, spike length, grain spike-1, 1000 seed weight and yield m-2. The studies of (Tong et al., 2012) investigated the effect of salinity in different soil layers on yield and its components of wheat and there were significant negative correlations between soil salinity and wheat yield components, especially between soil salinity and spike number per hectare. Different varieties showed varied level of tolerance to salinity in wheat fields. (Borzouei et al., 2012) assessed the effect of salinity on root traits and yield of two wheat cultivars and concluded that there were positive correlations among root surface and volume with root dry weight and therefore with grain yield. Therefore, based on the parameters studied in this experiment, it can be stated that a large part of the traits associated with sensitivity or tolerance of wheat cultivars to salinity could be attributed to their root characteristics. Conclusions It was concluded that lower EC level of 2.82 dSm-1 resulted in maximum grain yield (6829 kg ha-1) of wheat as compared to 5156 kg ha-1 grain yield obtained from higher EC level of 5.92 dSm-1. Among varieties, LU-26 produced highest grain yield (6468.70 kg ha-1), followed by Sarsabz (6412.20 kg ha-1), Kiran-95 (6036.70 kg ha-1), Bhitai (5664.30 kg ha-1) while lowest grain yield (5381.30 kg ha-1) was recorded in NIA-Sunahri. Hence, variety LU-26 x EC level of 2.82 dSm-1 was found an optimum interaction for obtaining maximum grain yield of wheat (7352.00 kg ha-1)

.


Table 1. Plant height (cm) of wheat varieties as affected by different salinity levels.

Varieties EC levels (dSm-1)

Mean for Varieties 2.82 5.92

Kiran-95 102.67 85.39 94.02 b Sarsabz 105.24 75.39 90.31 c

NIA-Sunehri 99.89 85.17 92.52 b LU-26 101.39 78.72 90.05 c Bhitai 109.28 89.72 99.50 a

Mean for EC levels 103.69 a 82.88 b - EC levels (EC) Varieties (V) EC x V

SE ± 0.9781 1.5465 2.1821 LSD 0.05 2.0549 2.3491 4.5949 LSD 0.01 2.8184 4.4515 6.2953

Table 2. Tillers m-2 of wheat varieties as affected by different salinity levels.



Kiran-95 434.67 263.67 349.17 a Sarsabz 431.67 282.33 257.00 a

NIA-Sunehri 385.67 223.67 304.67 b LU-26 428.00 288.33 358.17 a Bhitai 332.33 213.00 274.67 c


SE ± 3.2613 5.1566 7.2925 LSD 0.05 6.8517 10.834 15.321 LSD 0.01 9.3874 14.843 20.991

Table 3. Spike length (cm) of wheat varieties as affected by different salinity levels.



Kiran-95 12.757 10.310 11.533 a Sarsabz 12.730 10.380 11.555 a

NIA-Sunehri 10.597 9.180 9.893 b LU-26 13.050 10.737 11.893 a Bhitai 12.370 10.660 11.515 a


SE ± 0.2330 0.3684 0.5210 LSD 0.05 0.4895 0.7740 - LSD 0.01 0.6707 1.0604 -


Table 4. Spikelets spike-1 of wheat varieties as affected by different salinity levels.



Kiran-95 14.577 12.463 13.520 b Sarsabz 14.603 12.480 13.542 b

NIA-Sunehri 13.693 10.547 12.120 c LU-26 16.073 12.667 14.370 a Bhitai 14.237 12.003 13.120 b


SE ± 0.2600 0.4110 0.5813 LSD 0.05 0.5461 0.8635 - LSD 0.01 0.7483 1.1831 -

Table 5. Grains spike-1 of wheat varieties as affected by different salinity levels.



Kiran-95 42.557 36.887 39.722 b Sarsabz 45.333 37.220 41.277 b


Mean for EC levels EC levels (EC) Varieties (V) EC x V

SE ± 0.7687 1.2155 1.7189 LSD 0.05 1.6150 2.5536 - LSD 0.01 2.2127 3.4986 -

Table 6. Seed index (g) of wheat varieties as affected by different salinity levels.



Kiran-95 46.000 41.433 43.717 b Sarsabz 47.233 43.900 45.567 b



SE ± 1.3119 2.0743 2.9335 LSD 0.05 2.7562 4.3579 - LSD 0.01 3.7762 5.9707 -


Table 7. Biological yield (kg ha-1) of wheat varieties as affected by different salinity levels.



Kiran-95 13793 10767 12280 b Sarsabz 14683 11300 12992 a

NIA-Sunehri 12287 10433 11360 d LU-26 14403 11573 12988 a Bhitai 13100 10600 11850 c

Mean for EC levels 13653 a 10935 b - EC levels (EC) Varieties (V) EC x V

SE ± 96.219 152.14 215.15 LSD 0.05 202.50 319.63 452.97 LSD 0.01 276.96 437.91 619.30

Table 8. Grain yield (kg ha-1) of wheat varieties as affected by different salinity levels.



Kiran-95 7001.30 5072.00 6036.70 b Sarsabz 7436.70 5387.70 6412.20 a

NIA-Sunehri 5936.00 4826.70 5381.30 d LU-26 7352.00 5585.00 6468.70 a Bhitai 6418.70 4910.50 5664.30 c


SE ± 55.197 87.275 123.43 LSD 0.05 115.97 103.36 259.31 LSD 0.01 158.88 251.22 355.27

Table 9. Harvest index (%) of wheat varieties as affected by different salinity levels.



Kiran-95 46.000 41.433 43.717 b Sarsabz 47.233 43.900 45.567 b



SE ± 1.3119 2.0743 2.9335 LSD 0.05 2.7562 4.3579 - LSD 0.01 3.7762 5.9707 -


References 1] Abdel-Latef, A. A. 2005. Salt

tolerance of some wheat cultivars. Ph. D. Thesis, South valley Univ. Qena, Egypt, 1-159.

2] Ahmad, M., Munir, M. Shahzad, A. Masood, M. S. and Iqbal, M. 2011. Evaluation of bread wheat genotypes for salinity tolerance under saline field conditions. African Journal of Biotechnology, 10(20):4086-4092.

3] Azooz, M. M., Shaddad, M. A. and Abdel-Latef, A. A. 2004. The accumulation and compartmentation of proline in relation to salt tolerance of three sorghum cultivars. Industrial Journal Plant Physiology, 9:1-8.

4] Colmer, T. D., Flowers, T. J. and Munns, R. 2006. Use of wild relatives to improve salt tolerance in wheat. CSIRO Plant Industry, Australia, tdcolmer@cyllene. uwa. edu. au

5] Colmer, T. D., Munns, R. and Flowers, T. J. 2005. Improving salt tolerance of wheat and barley: future prospects. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 45(11):1425-1443.

6] Davenport, R., James, R. A. Plogander, A. Z. Tester, M. and Munns, R. 2005. Control of Sodium Transport in Durum Wheat. Plant Physiology, 137: 807-818.

7] GOP. 2012. Economic Survey of Pakistan. 2011-2012. Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock, Government of Pakistan, Statistics Division (Economic Wing), Islamabad.

8] Greenway, H. and Munns, R. 1980. Mechanisms of salt tolerance in nonhalophytes. Annual Review of Plant Physiology 31, 149–190.

9] Haroun, S. A. 2002. Fenugreek growth and metabolism in response to gibberellic acid and sea water. Assuit University Journal. Botany, 31: 11-12.

10] Ismail, A. M. 2003. Effect of salinity on physiological responses of selected lines/variety of wheat .Acta Agron, 51: 1-9.

11] Javed, F. 2002. In Vitro Salt Tolerance in Wheat. III. Water Relations in Callus. International Journal of Agriculture & Biology, 4 (4): 465–467.

12] Khan, A. S. and Habib, I. 2003. Genetic model of some economic traits in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Asian Journal Plant Sciences, 2(17-24):1153-1155.

13] Koyro, H. W. 2006. Effect of salinity on growth, photosynthesis, water relations and solute composition of the potential cash crop halophyte Plantago coronopus (L-). Environnement Experiment Botanischen. 56: 136-146.

14] Kuznetsov, V., Shorina,M. Aronova, E. Stetsenko,L. Rakitin, V. and Shevyakov, N. 2007. NaCl and ethylene dependent cadaverine accumulation and its possible protective role in the adaptation of the common ice plant to salt stress. Plant Sciences .172: 363-370.

15] Mahar, A. R., Memon, J. A. Abro, S. A. and Hollington, P. A. 2003. Response of few newly developed salt - tolerant wheat landrace selections under natural environmental conditions. Pak Journal Botanischen, 35(5): 865-869.

16] Mostafa, D. M. 2004. Metabolic imbalance and salinity tolerance of two maize cultivars. M.Sc. Thesis. El-Minia University. Elminia, Egypt 1-195.

17] Muhling, K. H. And Lauchli, A. 2003. Interaction of NaCl and Cd stress on compartmentation pattern of cations, antioxidant enzymes and proteins in leaves of two wheat genotypes differing in salt tolerance. Plant Soil 253: 219-231.


18] Muns, R., Schachtman D. P. and Gondon, A. G. 1995. The significance of a two-phase growth response to salinity in wheat and barely., Australian Journal of Plant Physiology, 22: 561-569.

19] Nevo, E. and Chen, G. 2010. Drought and salt tolerances in wild relatives for wheat and barley improvement. Plant, Cell and Environment Special Issue: Special Issue on Drought and Salinity Stress, 33 (4): 670–685.

20] Romero-Aranda, M. R., Jurado, O. and Cuartero, J. 2006. Silicon alleviates the deleterious salt effect on tomato plant growth by improving plant water status Journal Plant Physiologie, 163: 847-855.

21] Russel. D.F. And S.P. Eisensmith, 1983. MSTAT-C. Crop Soil Sci. Department Michigan state University. U.S.A

22] Shaddad, M. A., Ismail, A. M. Azooz, M. M. and Abdel-Latef, A. 2005. Effect of salt stress on growth and some related metabolites of three wheat cultivars. Assuit University Journal Botanischen, 34: 477-491.

23] Tong, W. J., Qian, L. C. Fu1, W. X. Ya, Hao, L. Z. and Yong, G.H. 2012. Study on Salt Tolerance of Wheat in Hetao Irrigation District and Its Ecological Adaptable Region. Acta Agronomica Sinica, [email protected]

Studies On Performance Of Wheat Varieties Under Saline Conditions

Documents

Transcript of Studies On Performance Of Wheat Varieties Under Saline Conditions