Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T20:10:39.298Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Yield stability of selected forage vetches (Vicia spp.) under rainfed conditions in west Asia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

A. M. Abd El Moneim ,
P. S. Cocks  and
Y. Swedan
A. M. Abd El Moneim
Affiliation:
International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), P.O. Box 5455, Aleppo, Syria
P. S. Cocks
Affiliation:
International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), P.O. Box 5455, Aleppo, Syria
Y. Swedan
Affiliation:
International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), P.O. Box 5455, Aleppo, Syria
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

With the current high prices for livestock, forage legumes are increasingly attractive to farmers in west Asia. There has been very little genetic improvement of the main species, of which three vetches, Vicia saliva (common vetch), V. villosa subsp. dasycarpa (woollypod vetch), and V. narbonensis (Narbon vetch), show promise. As a first step in genetic improvement 23 genotypes of common vetch and one each of woollypod vetch and Narbon vetch were grown at four sites in Syria and one in Lebanon over three seasons. Since local climatic conditions were considered to be of considerable importance, each site in each year was treated as a separate environment, to give 15 environments in all. genotype × environment (G × E) interactions were analysed using linear regression.

There was considerable variation in herbage and seed yields within both genotypes and environments, and G × E interactions were highly significant. In the case of herbage yield good environments could be defined as those receiving high rainfall and low incidence of frost. Several genotypes appeared to possess wide adaptation, in terms of both yield and stability. Climate, except for late spring rains, had little effect on seed yield, nor were any of the genotypes widely adapted. However, in the broad sense heritability was much higher for seed than for herbage yield.

There is a need to define good and bad environments for seed yield. Based on observations during the study it is likely that good environments for Narbon vetch are those where broomrape (Orobanche crenata) is absent, while root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne artiella) may affect seed yield of common vetch. In view of its high seed yield the possible role of Narbon vetch as a grain legume is briefly discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 111 , Issue 2 , October 1988 , pp. 295 - 301
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

A., Bliss. F., Baker, L. N., Franckowiak, J. D. & Hall, T. C. (1973). Genetic and environmental variation of seed yield, yield components, and seed protein quantity and quality of cowpea. Crop Science 13, 656–659.Google Scholar
Breese, E. L. (1969). The measurement and significance of genotype-environment interactions in grasses. Heredity 24, 27–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, W. J. (ed.) (1985). Statistical Software Manual. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Eberhart, S. A. & Russell, W. A. (1966). Stability parameters for comparing varieties. Crop Science 6, 36–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finlay, K. W. & Wilkinson, G. N. (1963). The analysis of adaptation in a plant breeding programme. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 14, 742–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fripp, Y. J. & Caten, C. E. (1971). Genotype-environment interactions in Schizopyllum commune. I. Analysis and character. Heredity 27, 393–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, J. (1975). Genotype-environment interactions – a challenge for plant breeding. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 85, 477–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Center for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas (1985). Annual Report, pp. 293–295.Google Scholar
International Center for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas (1986). Annual Report, p. 26.Google Scholar
Kernick, M. D. (1978). Indigenous arid and semi-arid forage plants of north Africa, the Near and Middle East. In Ecological Management of Arid and Semi-Arid Rangelands in Africa and the Near and Middle East, (EMASAR), Vol. IV, pp. 519–689. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation.Google Scholar
Miller, P. A., Williams, J. C. & Robinson, H. F. (1959). Variety × environment interactions in cotton variety tests and their implications in testing methods. Agronomy Journal 51, 132–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osman, A. E. & Nersoyan, N. (1986). Effect of the proportion of species on the yield and quality of forage mixtures, and on the yield of barley in the following year. Experimental Agriculture 22, 345–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinthus, M. J. (1973). Estimates of genotypic value: a proposed method. Euphytica 22, 121–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuel, C. J. A., Hill, J., Breese, E. L. & Davis, A. (1970). Assessing and predicting environmental response in Lolium perenne. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 75, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steel, G. D. & Torrie, J. H. (1960). Principles and Procedures of Statistics with Special Reference to Biological Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar