- Title
- Investigation into response of wheat genotypes to drought and optimum conditions in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa
- Creator
- Mzileni L S
- Subject
- Bonanza farms
- Subject
- Wheat
- Subject
- Drought - tolerant plants
- Date
- 2023
- Type
- Master's theses
- Type
- text
- Identifier
- http://hdl.handle.net/10353/27732
- Identifier
- vital:69397
- Description
- Wheat is generally one of the dominant crops globally, being mainly used for human food and livestock feed. Due to climate change, drought makes it challenging to produce enough wheat mostly under dryland production regions in South Africa. Drought stress has severely reduced wheat yield by up to 70 percent, and adversely compromised wheat grain quality. The adoption of drought-tolerant cultivars offers a sustainable and low-cost solution for increasing wheat yields and minimise importing the crop to meet national requirements. The main objective of this study was to investigate the response of different wheat genotypes to drought and optimum conditions in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Forty diverse wheat genotypes were evaluated in this study. The specific objectives were: (i) to evaluate the response of wheat genotypes under optimum and drought-stressed field conditions; (ii) to determine the effect of terminal drought stress on wheat grain quality composition; and (iii) to identify appropriate drought tolerance indices that can be used as selection tools under field conditions. This study was conducted in the field using a 5x8 alpha lattice design, replicated twice under two water regimes (drought and optimum) over two consecutive winter seasons of 2020 and 2021 at two different sites namely University of Fort Hare Research Farm in Alice, and Zanyokwe irrigation scheme in Keiskamahoek. Drought stress was imposed from 50% flowering up to physiological maturity. Data on agro-physiological traits such as duration to heading (DTH); flowering (DTF); maturity (DTM); plant height (HT); spike length (SL); number of spikelets per spike (SPS); kernels per spike (KPS); and grain yield (GY (kg/ha)) was subjected to the analysis of variance using Genstat 18th edition. As the study took place over two sites, a combined ANOVA table revealed significant differences (p0.001) among genotypes, and all interactions such as genotype by water regime (GWR); genotype by seasons (GS) for all studied traits. Notably, the extent and severity of drought differed between geographical regions and between seasons. This necessitated the adoption of the additive main effect and multiplicative interaction analysis (AMMI) for the identification of stable genotypes under two different water regimes over two sites. Regarding grain yield, superior and/or stable genotypes included G5 (4334 kg/ha under optimum, and 2871kg/ha under drought), and G22 (4418 kg/ha under optimum, and 2624kg/ha under drought) at the UFH site. G21 (3194 kg/ha under optimum, and 2938 kg/ha under drought), G33 (2552kg/ha under optimum, and 3810 kg/ha under drought), and G35 (2688 kg/ha under optimum, and 3309 kg/ha under drought) at the ZAN site. Stable genotypes across sites included G21 and G33. There were generally weak correlations between agro-physiological traits and grain yield. From the experiment, grain quality traits such as fixed protein (PF); wet gluten (WG); hectolitre mass (HLM); and thousand kernel weight (TKW) were also examined. A combined ANOVA revealed significant differences (p0.001) among the interaction of genotypes by environments (GE) for all traits except PF. This implies that the performance of wheat genotypes across sites was also different, and therefore, necessitated separate analysis of variance for each site. Significant differences (p0.001) among genotypes (G), water regimes (WR), and the interaction of genotypes by water regime (GWR) were observed for all studied quality traits except PF in both sites. GWR showed no significant differences for TKW in the ZAN site. The stability in the performance of genotypes across water regimes was further determined. G38 was stable for wet gluten; G31 and G26 were stable for PF; G36 was stable for HLM; and G11, G15, and G29 were stable for TKW at the UFH site. G6 was stable for both WG and PF; G13 and G15 were stable for HLM; and G35, G21, and G40 were stable for TKW at the ZAN site. These results suggest that the quality of wheat grains was affected under drought stress conditions except PF. Average grain yield data under both stressed (Ys) and optimum (Yp) conditions was used to compute a number of different drought tolerance indices. These include mean productivity (MP); geometric mean productivity (GMP); harmonic mean (HM); Tolerance index (TOL), stress susceptible index (SSI), sensitive drought index (SDI), and stress tolerance index (STI). The aim was to identify appropriate drought tolerance indices that can be used as selection tools under drought stress. MP, GMP, and HM were the more appropriate indices as they had a strong and positive correlation with grain yield under both drought and optimum conditions. However, genotypes G5, G22, G8, and G21 were more tolerant and stable as they showed high mean values. Based on the results, G19, G16, G2, and G20 were more sensitive to drought as they showed low values of MP, GMP, and HM. Overall, genotype: G5, G21, G22, and G33 are recommended for production under drought and optimum conditions, as they showed stable performance across water regimes. Principal component analysis also revealed that MP, GMP, and HM were the only indices that had positive loadings into the first principal component.
- Description
- Thesis (MSc) -- Faculty of Science and Agriculture, 2023
- Format
- computer
- Format
- online resource
- Format
- application/pdf
- Format
- 1 online resource (xiii, 132 leaves)
- Format
- Publisher
- University of Fort Hare
- Publisher
- Faculty of Science and Agriculture
- Language
- English
- Rights
- University of Fort Hare
- Rights
- All Rights Reserved
- Rights
- Open Access
- Hits: 691
- Visitors: 699
- Downloads: 75
Thumbnail | File | Description | Size | Format | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
View Details | SOURCE1 | Mzileni MSc April 2023_Final.pdf | 1 MB | Adobe Acrobat PDF | View Details |