Journal of Research in Ecology ISSN No: Print: 2319 –1546; Online: 2319– 1554

An International Scientific Research Journal

Original Research

Evaluation and selection of wheat genotypes under terminal drought stress

Authors: ABSTRACT:
Journal of Research in Ecology

Fazlollah Hassani1, The current investigation was carried out to evaluate the performance of
Saadollah Houshmand2, wheat genotypes under terminal drought stress and determination of high yielding
Fariba Rafiei2 and genotypes under drought stress and non-stress conditions, during 2013-14 and 2014-
Ali Niazi3 15 cropping seasons at Zarghan Agricultural Research Station, Fars province, Iran.
About 100 wheat genotypes (98 bread wheat and two durum wheat) were evaluated
Institution:
in alpha lattice experiment with two replications under stress (no irrigation after
1. Department of Seed and
Plant Improvement, Fars anthesis) and full irrigation conditions. Fifteen drought tolerance and susceptibility
Research and Education indices were calculated based on grain yield for each of the genotypes. The results of
Center for Agriculture and combined analysis of variance showed that the effect of year, drought stress and
Natural Resources, genotype for grain yield were significant at P value < 0.01. The genotypes 96 (Ofogh),
Agricultural Research, 75 (Roshan) and 95 (WS-90-18) under full irrigation, and 44 (Misr1), 36 and 80
Education and Extension (Dehdasht) under drought stress conditions had the maximum grain yield. With
Organization (AREEO), respect to positive and significant correlation of Harmonic Mean Index (HARM),
P.O.Box: 71555617, Shiraz, Geometric Mean Productivity (GMP), Stress Tolerance Index (STI), Mean Productivity
Iran. (MP), Yield Index (YI), Modified Stress Tolerance Index for stress (MSTIs) and Modified
2. Department of Plant Stress Tolerance Index for irrigation condition (MSTIp), with grain yield under both
Breeding and Biotechnology, drought stress (Ys) and full irrigation (Yp) conditions, these indices were introduced as
Faculty of Agriculture, the best screening criteria for the evaluation of genotypes in the current experiment.
Shahrekord University, The screening of drought tolerant genotypes was performed using mean rank and
Shahrekord, Iran. rank standard deviation of selected indices, and Biplot analysis was accomplished
with the use of Principal Component Analysis (PCA). Finally, the genotypes 44(Misr1),
3. Research center for
96(Ofogh), 80(Dehdasht), 70(Seymareh) and 71(Azar2) were introduced as the most
Biotechnology, College of
tolerant genotypes to terminal drought stress.
Agriculture, Shiraz
University, Shiraz, Iran. Keywords:
Drought tolerance after anthesis, grain yield, susceptibility indices, wheat.
Corresponding author:
Fazlollah Hassani

Email ID: Article Citation:

Fazlollah Hassani, Saadollah Houshmand, Fariba Rafiei and Ali Niazi
Evaluation and selection of wheat genotypes under terminal drought stress
Journal of Research in Ecology (2017) 5(2): 1264-1275

Dates:
Received: 20 July 2017 Accepted: 24 Aug 2017 Published: 08 Nov 2017

This article is governed by the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/

Web Address: licenses/by/4.0), which gives permission for unrestricted use, non-commercial, distribution and
http://ecologyresearch.info/ reproduction in all medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
documents/EC0462.pdf

Journal of Research 1264-1275| JRE | 2017 | Vol 5 | No 2

in Ecology
An International www.ecologyresearch.info
Scientific Research Journal

INTRODUCTION
Among the cereals, wheat has vital role in nutri-
tion and national economy of developing countries
(Alam et al., 2008). Drought stress is one the most im-
portant limiting factors in wheat production in arid and
semi-arid areas of Iran (Ahmadi et al., 2009). The area
under Irrigated and rain-fed wheat cultivation in Iran are
respectively 2.2 and 4.3 million hectares (Najafian et
al., 2011). The production of wheat in dry-land farming
is completely depended to rain. Therefore, the incidence
of drought stress during reproductive stage of wheat
growth is a non-avoidance issue, and lack of sufficient
rain and its unsuitable distribution, is the main reason of
yield reduction in these regions. In irrigated wheat, the
water shortage usually occurs at grain filling period,
because of other spring crops competition for water, that
can noticeably reduce wheat grain yield (Galeshi and
Eschoee, 2001). Drought stress reduces mean grain
weight and finally the grain yield, via accelerating the
leaf senescence, decreasing growth period and grain
filling rate (Royo et al., 2000).Therefore, those cultivars
that can produce more grain yield, under both full irriga-
tion and terminal drought stress conditions are very
worthwhile.
Different indices have been introduced for eval-
uating the response of crops under full irrigation and
drought stress conditions. These indices are determined
based on the tolerance or susceptibility of genotypes to
drought stress (Fernandez, 1992). Evaluation of wheat
genotypes under full irrigation and terminal drought
stress conditions are accomplished, using indices such
as Stress Susceptibility Index (SSI) (Fisher and Maurer,
1978), Mean Productivity Index (MP), Tolerance Index
(TOL) (Rosille and Hamblin, 1981), Stress Tolerance
Index (STI) and Geometric Mean Productivity (GMP)
(Fernandez, 1992). Fisher and Maurer (1978) and
Bouslama and Schapaugh (1984) introduced Relative
Drought Index (RDI) and Yield Stability Index (YSI)
respectively. Other indices like Drought Resistance
1265
Hassani et al., 2017
Index (DI) (Lan, 1998) and Modified Stress Tolerance
Index (MSTI) which is a corrected form of Stress Toler-
ance Index, has been also introduced for the screening
of tolerant genotypes under drought stress and non-
stress conditions. Abiotic Tolerance Index (ATI) and
Susceptibility Stress Percentage Index (SSPI) are able to
differentiate relative tolerant genotypes from non-
tolerant genotypes, while Stress Non-stress Production
Index (SNPI) have the capability for diagnosing stable
and high yielding genotypes under both full irrigation
and drought stress conditions (Moosavi et al., 2008). In
regard to the evaluation of wheat genotypes perfor-
mance under full irrigation and drought stress condi-
tions, those with desirable yield in both environments
were classified in group A. Those genotypes that pro-
duced desirable yield under full irrigation or under
drought stress conditions were respectively put in group
B and C. Likewise genotypes with low yield in both
environments were placed in group D (Fernandez,
1992). Mardeh et al. (2006) reported that under moder-
ate drought stress conditions, the STI, GMP and MP
were effective indices in selecting high yielding wheat
genotypes under both full irrigation and drought stress
conditions. According to Mohammadi et al. (2010),
genotypes with high YSI had high and low yields re-
spectively under drought stress and full irrigation condi-
tions. Jafari et al. (2009) noted that DI and STI indices
are able to identify suitable genotypes for both full irri-
gation and drought stress conditions. Thus they can be
used in identification of favorable cultivars in regions
that the intervals among irrigations are higher than those
of normal ones or in regions that wheat encounters with
water shortage at critical growth stages (Jafari et al.,
2009) .
The objectives of the current research were to
evaluate the grain yields of bread and durum wheat gen-
otypes under terminal drought stress and full irrigation,
to determine genotypes with better yields under both
conditions. Additionally, to determine drought indices
Journal of Research in Ecology (2017) 5(2): 1264–1275
Hassani et al., 2017
Table 1. Drought tolerance, susceptibility indices and their related formulas
S. No Indices Formula References
1 Stress Susceptibility Index SSI=(1-(Ys/Yp))/ 1-( Ῡs/ Ῡp) Fisher and Maurer (1978)
2 Tolerance Index TOL=Yp-Ys Rosille and Hamblin (1981)
3 Mean Productivity MP=(Yp+Ys)/2 Rosille and Hamblin (1981)
4 Stress Tolerance index STI=( Yp×Ys)/( Ῡp)2 Fernandez (1992)
5 Geometric Mean Productivity GMP=(Yp×Ys)0.5 Fernandez (1992)
6 Harmonic Mean of HARM=(2×(Yp×Ys))/(Yp+Ys) Fernandez (1992)
Productivity
7 Relative Drought Index RDI= (Ys/Yp)/( Ῡs / Ῡp) Fisher and Maurer (1978)
8 Yield Index YI=Ys/Ῡs Gavuzzi et al. (1997)
9 Yield Stability Index YSI=Ys/Yp Bouslama and Schapaugh
(1984)
10 Drought Resistance Index DI=Ys×(Ys/Yp)/Ῡs Lan (1998)
11 Tolerance Stress Modified (K1=Yp2/Ῡp2 and MSTI=KiSTI Farshadfar and Sutka (2002)
Index K2=Ys2/Ῡs2)

12 Abiotic Tolerance Index ATI=[(Yp-Ys)/(Ῡp/Ῡs)] ×(Yp×Ys)0.5 Moosavi et al. (2008)

13 Stress Susceptibility SSPI=[(Yp-Ys)/2Yp] ×100 Moosavi et al. (2008)
Percentage Index
14 Stress Non-Stress Production SNPI=[(Yp+Ys)/(Yp-Ys)]0.5× Moosavi et al. (2008)
Index (Yp×Ys×Ys)
15 Sensitivity Drought Index SDI=(Yp-Ys)/Yp Farshadfar and Javadinia
(2011)
*Ῡp, Ῡs, Ypand Ys are the mean yield of all genotypes under full irrigation and stress and mean yield of each
genotypes in these two conditions, respectively.

for differentiate tolerant and susceptible genotypes at
terminal drought stress.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
In this project, a number of 98 bread wheat and
two durum wheat genotypes (Table 3) were evaluated in
alpha lattice experiment with two replications under
drought stress (no irrigation after anthesis) and full irri-
gation conditions. The genotypes that have similar pedi-
grees (Table 3) are those sister lines with different char-
acters that were selected from drought experiments in
previous years (unpublished data). Due to the large
numbers of the genotypes, each of the replications was
broken to five blocks. Each block included of 20 geno-
types, that each was sowed on two beds with 60 cm
width and 100 cm length (area of 1.2 square meters).
Fifteen drought tolerance and susceptibility indices were
calculated based on grain yield for each of the geno-
types. The experiment was carried out in Fars Agricul-
tural and Natural Resources Research and Education
Center (Zarghan station), which is located in 30 kilome-
ters from north of Shiraz city of Fars province, Iran. The
geography characters of Zarghan are as following: the
longitude is 52 and 43, the latitude is 29 and 46, the
elevation from sea level is 1604 meters, the annual aver-
age precipitation is 345 mm, and the annual average
temperature is 15.8° centigrade (NGIA, 2012). Zarghan
station is characterized with temperate climatic condi-
tions. It is one of the main breeding centers for produc-
ing wheat cultivars. The mean of temperature and rain-
fall are exhibited in Table 2. In both years of research,
the lands for performing the experiments were under
fallow system in the previous year and its provision was
accompanied with two spring and autumn plowing,
disking and leveling. The required fertilizers including
nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium were added to soil
based on soil test with the ratios 100, 90 and 50 kg/ha
respectively. After seed planting, Irrigations were equal-

Journal of Research in Ecology (2017) 5(2): 1264–1275 1266

 Hassani et al., 2017
ly done in both stress and non-stress experimental

September

25±1.0
blocks until anthesis stage, based on plant requirements

-
and consideration of rainfalls and its distributions. The
irrigations were completely cut off in drought stress
August

29±1.4

23.6
0.8
0
blocks after anthesis. Broad and narrow leaves of weeds
were controlled using Granestar (Tribenuron-Methyl

29.1±1.4
29±1.3
(sulfonylurea) (750 g/kg) and axial (100 g/l pinoxaden
July

2.8
0
Table 2. Meteorological statistics related to 2013-14 and 2014-15 cropping seasons in Zarghan station

+25G/LCloquintocet-Mexyl) herbicides respectively.

Herbicides used in the area were used to control of
25.5±1.9

26.6±2.5
June
0

0
weeds. Statistical analysis and mathematical calcula-
tions were accomplished using excel, SAS (SAS Insti-
19.8±1.5

20.5±1.9
tute, 2004) and Gene-STAT software's (VSN Interna-
May

8.5
0

tional, 2011).
14.6±3.5

15.2±3.1
April
41.6

21.5

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results of combined analysis of variance
showed that the effects of year, drought stress and geno-
11.3±2.

9.3±3.4
March
6.9

36
6

type on grain yield were significant at 1.0% of probabil-

ity (data not shown). The cultivars Ofogh, Roshan and
February

5.4±2.5

9.4±3.1

line WS-90-18 under full irrigation condition and the

18.9

56.4

lines with numbers 44 (Misr 1), 36 and 80 (Dehdasht)

under drought stress condition had the maximum grain
January

0.6±3.1

7.4±2.5
73.2

11.6

yield. In the current study, 15 drought tolerance and

susceptibility indices were evaluated (Table 1). The
December

studied genotypes were ranked based on the rate of each

9.2±2.5

8.3±1.6
41.5
2.2

index. The resistance indices STI, GMP, HARM,

MSTIp, MSTIs, MP, YI, DI, ATI, YSI, RDI and SNPI
November

were ranked from high to low rates and the susceptibil-

13.8±2.2

12±3.4
54.2

22.5

ity indices SSI, SDI, SSPI and TOL were ranked from
low to high rates (Tables 4), somehow the genotypes
19.7±2.5

21.1±1.8
October

were successively placed from tolerant to susceptible in

0

all indices. Due to the multiplicity of genotypes and

considering the aim that tolerant and susceptible geno-
Temperature (◦C)

Temperature (◦C)

types to drought are practically placed at the top and

Precipitation

Precipitation

bottom of table for each index, thus in tables 4 only the

first 25 genotypes (tolerant to drought) and the last 15
Mean

Mean
(mm)

(mm)

that were placed in the middle of table were deleted.

Year 1

Year 2

As can be seen in table 4a, the highest yields of

genotypes (susceptible to drought) were shown and

1267 Journal of Research in Ecology (2017) 5(2): 1264–1275

Hassani et al., 2017
Table 3. List of used genotypes and their numbers in the experiment and statistical analysis
those der full irrigation condition were related to the
genotypes 96 (Ofogh), 75 (Roshan) and 95 (WS-90-18).
Under drought stress condition, the genotypes 44 (Misr
1), 36 and 80 (Dehdasht) had respectively maximum
yields. The cultivar Ofogh that had first rank under full
irrigation condition was placed at fourth grade under
Journal of Research in Ecology (2017) 5(2): 1264–1275
drought stress condition. Likewise, the genotypes with
numbers 75 and 95 that were located at the second and
third positions of ranking were retrograded to 32 and 39
positions of ranking that shows the bad effects of
drought stress on these genotypes. By looking on the
next ranks in these two columns of Table 4a we notice
1268
 Hassani et al., 2017
Table 4a. Selected tolerant and susceptible genotypes based on drought tolerance indices
R Yp Ys STI GMP HARM MSTIp MSTIs MP YI All Tol
1 96* 44 96 44 44 70 44 44 44 44
2 75 36 44 96 96 96 70 96 96 96
3 95 80 70 80 80 44 96 75 36 80
4 4 96 80 70 36 80 86 70 83 70
5 70 83 71 36 35 75 80 80 80 71
6 71 37 86 75 37 95 36 95 86 35
7 44 35 75 35 46 4 83 71 70 1
8 46 59 95 46 70 71 71 4 59 46
9 1 7 83 71 83 1 37 46 6 36
10 47 34 35 37 75 98 6 35 35 37
11 91 41 36 95 2 46 35 36 92 83
12 80 6 1 1 71 86 98 1 7 86
13 97 46 46 2 1 91 41 37 37 75
14 100 2 98 83 41 97 1 47 71 6
15 2 86 6 47 47 35 92 2 45 2
16 99 92 4 4 95 2 46 83 58 98
17 35 9 37 41 6 47 2 41 94 41
18
98 1 91 86 7 100 59 86 1 58
19 60 45 47 6 86 37 7 91 46 7
20 16 47 2 7 34 99 58 6 14 91
21 86 58 58 91 4 83 75 98 34 95
22 81 70 41 98 91 41 14 7 98 47
23 41 94 99 81 58 58 34 100 74 81
24 37 53 68 58 98 6 3 60 29 68
25 82 71 81 45 45 36 95 81 68 45
R Yp Ys STI GMP HARM MSTI(p) MSTI(s) MP YI All Tol
86 32 84 73 15 84 84 63 24 93 12
87 13 93 15 49 93 66 52 84 21 93
88 24 12 52 84 22 24 87 49 69 16
89 73 11 24 93 63 10 16 93 87 22
90 12 87 84 12 15 72 84 12 52 11
91 66 17 93 63 12 73 93 10 10 15
92 72 64 48 11 11 93 22 63 22 10
93 11 22 10 10 48 48 15 11 15 63
94 61 10 63 48 10 13 17 13 17 64
95 64 15 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 17
96 17 16 17 17 17 63 10 17 16 48
97 63 13 13 13 13 17 13 48 13 13
98 88 88 61 61 88 61 61 61 90 61
99 90 90 88 88 61 88 90 88 88 88
100 48 61 90 90 90 90 88 90 61 90
*: Numbers in the table except column “R” are the numbers related to the Genotypes.
R: Ranks of genotypes based on tolerance to drought stress, Yp: Grain yield under full irrigation, Ys: Grain yield un-
der terminal drought stress, STI: Stress Tolerance index, GMP: Geometric Mean Productivity, HARM: Harmonic
Mean of Productivity, MSTIp: Modified Stress Tolerance index using Yp, MSTIs: Modified Stress Tolerance index
using Ys, MP: Mean Productivity, YI: Yield Index, All TOL: New rank that is calculated based on rank sum of stress
tolerance indices (STI, GMP, HARM, MSTIp, MSTIs, MP and YI)

1269 Journal of Research in Ecology (2017) 5(2): 1264–1275

Hassani et al., 2017

Table 4b. Selected tolerant and susceptible genotypes based on drought tolerance and susceptibility indices
R DI SSI SDI SSPI TOL ATI YSI RDI SNPI *All SUS
1 44* 59 59 53 53 53 59 59 33 53
2 36 53 29 29 29 48 29 29 7 29
3 59 29 53 59 59 29 53 53 59 59
4
83 36 36 14 14 63 36 36 73 14
5 92 14 14 63 48 14 14 14 53 36
6
7 7 7 48 63 66 7 7 63 5
7 29 57 57 72 5 5 57 33 90 57
8 14 5 92 36 66 72 92 57 48 72
9 86 92 33 5 36 59 33 92 72 48
10 96 48 72 57 72 17 72 72 17 92
11 53 72 5 66 57 32 5 48 29 63
12 80 33 48 92 92 57 48 5 64 33
13 57 63 44 33 9 92 44 73 88 66
14 6 66 63 73 73 13 63 44 50 73
15 34 44 73 7 33 64 73 63 13 34
16 37 83 66 34 78 76 66 34 24 9
17 94 34 34 9 32 24 34 66 5 7
18 35 73 83 78 34 9 83 83 14 78
19 9 9 9 32 76 11 9 9 66 83
20 45 78 37 24 83 78 37 74 43 32
21 74 37 78 76 24 39 78 37 84 76
22 5 74 74 83 7 27 74 94 57 44
23 33 32 94 20 77 12 94 78 93 20
24 72 76 32 44 20 30 32 50 77 74
25 58 94 76 77 27 73 76 32 61 37
R DI SSI SDI SSPI TOL ATI YSI RDI SNPI *All SUS
86 87 70 54 47 22 1 54 54 19 96
87 52 54 100 19 21 60 100 90 47 90
88 54 19 13 15 55 43 13 100 100 71
89 17 69 90 91 15 99 90 69 46 100
90 64 90 69 99 99 46 69 13 99 21
91 69 75 75 71 91 55 75 75 98 70
92 10 21 97 22 100 91 97 97 97 97
93 21 97 95 21 96 97 95 95 91 75
94 13 95 21 70 71 16 21 88 1 88
95 22 88 88 100 70 70 88 21 71 22
96 15 4 4 97 97 4 4 15 4 15
97 90 22 22 75 75 71 22 22 96 95
98 16 15 15 95 4 96 15 4 75 4
99 88 61 61 16 95 95 61 61 95 16
100 61 16 16 4 16 75 16 16 70 61
*: All the numbers in the table except column “R” are the numbers related to the Genotypes.
R: Ranks of genotyps based on tolerance to drought stress, DI: Drought Resistance Index, SSI: Stress Susceptibility Index,
SDI: Sensitivity drought index, SSPI: Stress Susceptibility Percentage Index, Tol: Tolerance index, ATI: Abiotic Tolerance
Index, YSI: Yield Stability Index RDI: Relative Drought Index SNPI: Stress Non-Stress Production Index All SUS: New
rank that is calculated based on rank sum of stress susceptibility indices (SSI, SDI, SSPI and TOL).
Journal of Research in Ecology (2017) 5(2): 1264–1275 1270
 Hassani et al., 2017
that some of the genotypes like 4, 70 and 71 had

Ys
1
reduced ranking under drought stress to full irrigation

**significant at 0.01 level of probability and “ns” non-significantYp: Grain yeild under full irrigation, Ys: Grain yield under terminal drought stress, STI: Stress Tolerance index, GMP: Geometric Mean Productivity,
0.601**
condition, but the genotypes 44, 36 and 80 had promo-

Yp
1
tion of ranking. This issue indicates the different

-0.323**
0.526**
responses of the genotypes to stress and non-stress con-
Table 5 Correlation coefficients between indicators of drought tolerance and yield under stress and full irrigation conditions.

YSI
1
ditions. Among all the genotypes, genotype 48 under

HARM: Harmonic Mean of Productivity, MSTIp: Modified Stress Tolerance index using Yp, MSTIs: Modified Stress Tolerance index using Ys, MP: Mean Productivity, YI: Yield Index.
0.526**
0.604**
0.964**
full irrigation condition and genotype 61 under drought

YI
1
stress condition had the lowest ranks in the Table 4a.

-0.865**
-0.104ns

-0.139ns
0.708**
The two genotype numbers 44 and 96 were considered

TOL
1

as the tolerant genotypes based on the HARM, MP and

0.323**
0.896**

0.874**
0.861**
0.107ns

YI indices. Despite of differences in the ranks of the

STI
1

genotypes associated with the eight tolerance indices

-0.893**
-0.145ns

-0.161ns
0.288**
0.979**

0.675**

and by considering simultaneously all eight indices,

SSPI
1

then the four genotypes 44, 96, 80 and 70 could be con-

-0.509**
-0.997**

-0.523**
-0.090ns

sidered as the tolerant genotypes to drought stress. Alt-

0.896**

0.883**

0.339**

SSI
1

hough at the end of Table 4a, the four genotypes 90, 88,
61 and 1 were shown to be as the most susceptible gen-
-0.505**
-0.721**
-0.652**
-0.701**
-0.364**

-0.795**
-0.321**
0.503**

SNPI
1

otypes but, their ranks are different among indices.

Majidi et al. (2011) and Talebi et al. (2009) reported
-0.503**

-0.526**

-0.526**
-0.108ns
0.997**
0.893**

0.865**

0.323**

SDI
-1**
1

that STI, GMP, HARM and MP are able to identify high

yielding genotypes under both normal and drought
-0.999**

-0.993**
-0.890**

-0.854**

-0.314**
0.501**

0.533**
0.999**

0.526**
0.116ns

RDI
1

stress conditions. Farshadfar et al. (2012) also reported

that the indices STI, GMP, MP, DI, YI and MSTI can
-0.473**
-0.240*

-0.220*

0.933**

0.886**

0.704**
0.835**
0.089ns

0.134ns

MSTIs
0.249*

0.240*

identify the tolerant genotypes having high yield in both

1

full irrigation and drought stress conditions.

-0.704**
-0.139ns

-0.148ns
0.875**

0.510**
0.939**
0.541**
0.713**

0.911**
0.665**
0.148ns

0.167ns

MSTIp

In all indices including SSI, SDI, SSPI, TOL,

1

YSI and RDI, the three genotypes 53, 29 and 59 were

-0.666**
-0.034ns

-0.021ns
0.040 ns
0.900**
0.844**

0.364**
0.968**
0.396**
0.840**

0.929**
0.855**
0.034ns

MP

identified as tolerant genotypes, of course with differ-

1

ences in their ranks. In the index SNPI the first two

-0.562**

HARM
0.975**
0.837**
0.870**

-0.238*

-0.227*

0.961**

0.924**

0.827**
0.944**
0.156ns

0.190ns
0.242*

0.238*

genotypes are 33 and 7 but, the third genotype as well as

1

other indices is the genotype 59. Except the susceptible

-0.616**
-0.140ns
0.994**
0.993**
0.872**
0.863**

0.258**
0.970**
0.291**
0.889**

0.881**
0.906**
0.146ns

0.140ns
-0.128

GMP

indices including SSI and SDI, and also tolerance indi-

1

ces YSI and RDI, in which the genotypes 15, 22, 4 and
-0.839**

-0.828**

-0.523**
0.620**
0.690**
0.536**
0.359**
0.696**
0.841**

0.609**

0.889**
0.839**

0.874**
0.062ns

-0.56**

0.201*

88 were introduced as susceptible ones with little differ-

DI
1

ence in their ranks, coordination does not exist in intro-

-0.598**

-0.717**

-0.615**
-0.203*
0.574**
0.491**
0.653**
0.739**
0.401**

0.615**

0.648**
0.846**
0.588**
0.917**

0.873**
0.187ns

ducing susceptible genotypes to drought stress among

0.223*

ATI
1

the mentioned indices. With respect to the above results

it seems that the submitter indices in Table 4b, have
HARM

MSTIp
MSTIs
GMP

SNPI

SSPI

TOL
RDI
ATI

SDI

YSI
STI
SSI
MP

Yp
Ys
DI

YI

only distinguished those tolerant genotypes having low

1271 Journal of Research in Ecology (2017) 5(2): 1264–1275

Hassani et al., 2017
Table 6. Principle component analysis using grain yield and drought tolerance and susceptibility indices
No Name PCI1 PCI2
1 Yp 0.809 0.573
2 Ys 0.966 -0.201
3 SSI -0.382 0.916
4 TOL 0.040 0.986
5 MP 0.958 0.248
6 YI 0.973 -0.200
7 YSI 0.392 -0.913
8 STI 0.977 0.189
9 GMP 0.978 0.159
10 DI 0.810 -0.574
11 HARM 0.978 0.076
12 SDI -0.392 -0.908
13 RDI 0.394 -0.908
14 SSPI 0.016 0.984
15 ATI 0.413 0.844
16 SNPI -0.511 -0.717
17 MSTIp 0.867 0.405
18 MSTIs 0.934 0.044
19 Eigen value 9.661 7.530
20 Variance (%) 53.670 41.832
21 Cumulative variance (%) 53.670 95.502
Yp: Grain yield under full irrigation, Ys: Grain yield under terminal drought stress, STI: Stress Tolerance index, GMP:
Geometric Mean Productivity, HARM: Harmonic Mean of Productivity, MSTIp: Modified Stress Tolerance index
using Yp, MSTIs: Modified Stress Tolerance index using Ys, MP: Mean Productivity, YI: Yield Index

yield with little difference under full irrigation and
drought stress conditions but, they cannot identify those
genotypes with high and desirable yield under the two
conditions. Although these indices cannot be used in
identification of cultivars and lines having acceptable
yield in farmer’s fields but possibly they can be used in
identification of genotypes with the least reduction in
their yield in order to do genetic and molecular studies
or selecting the parents in crosses to increase tolerance
to drought stress.
The correlations among indices and with yield
under full irrigation and drought stress conditions are
exhibited in Table 5. The yield under drought stress
condition (Ys) had positive and significant correlation
(60.1%) with that under full irrigation condition (Yp).
The indices HARM (94.4%), GMP (90.6%), STI
(86.1%) MP (85.5%), DI (87.4%), YI (96.4%), MSTIs
(83.5%), MSTIp (66.5%), RDI (52.6%), YSI (52.6%)
had positive and significant correlation with the yield
under drought stress condition. Also the yield under full
irrigation condition had a positive and significant corre-
lation with the indices MP (92.9%), MSTIp (91.1%),
GMP (88.1%). STI (87.4%), ATI (87.3%), HARM
(82.7%), TOL (70.8%), MSTIs (70.4%), SSPI (67.5%)
and YI (60.4%). Majidi et al. (2011) noted that the yield
under full irrigation condition had positive and signifi-
cant correlation with the indices TOL, MP, GMP, STI
and HARM. They further stated that the correlation be-
tween yield and indices under drought stress condition
showed that the selection based on the indices might
increase the yield under both environments.
Among the above mentioned indices, GMP,
HARM, MP and STI had correlations above 82% with
the yield under both full irrigation and drought stress
conditions. The results indicated that these indices are
very efficient in distinguishing high yielding genotypes

Journal of Research in Ecology (2017) 5(2): 1264–1275 1272


under both full irrigation drought stress conditions. Far-
shadfar et al. (2011) believed that the most suitable in-
dex for selecting tolerant genotype to stress is one that
has high correlation with the yield under both environ-
ments conditions. The result showed that STI, GMP,
HARM, MSTIp, MSTIs, MP and YI had high correla-
tion with the yield under both mentioned conditions, are
very valuable in evaluating genotypes (Table 5).
Principle component analysis using the yield
and drought tolerance and susceptibility indices showed
that the two first components have eigen value above
one and 95.50% of variations are determined by these
two components (Table 6). When the data in Table 6
was evaluated more precisely, it was identified that sev-
en introduced indices (indices in Table 4) that all are
drought tolerant indices, along with the yield under both
full irrigation and drought stress conditions are placed in
PCI1 one that can be named tolerant factor. Therefore,
by computing mean rank, standard deviation of rank
and finally rank sum and also simultaneously consider-
ing all seven mentioned indices and ranking of geno-
types based on new criterion, it can be considered that
the genotypes 44, 96 and 80 are the most tolerant and
90, 88 and 61 are the most susceptible genotypes to
drought stress (Table 4a).
It should be noted that the indices SSI, SDI,
SSPI and TOL have high positive correlation among
themselves but none of them has positive and significant
correlation with the yield under drought stress condition
(Table 5). By computing rank sum and ranking geno-
types based on the above four indices, the genotypes 96,
90 and 71 were introduced as the most tolerant and 61,
16 and 4 were introduced as the most susceptible
genotypes to drought stress condition (Table 4b). The
results showed that the above introduced tolerant geno-
types to drought stress have low potential yields and the
discussed indices have emphasis on the least difference
of yield under stress and non-stress conditions. Further-
more, if the aim is to screen the genotypes with high
1273
Hassani et al., 2017
yield under drought stress condition, then the later indi-
ces does not respond. Based on the whole obtained data,
it can be conclude that the indices HARM, GMP, STI,
MP, YI, MSTIs and MSTIp are the best criteria for se-
lection of genotypes under drought stress condition.
Based on the results, the genotypes numbers 44,
96, 80, 70 and 71 can be introduce as the most tolerant
genotypes to drought. Naghavi et al. (2013) in corn and
Farshadfar et al. (2012) in wheat, introduced the indices
GMP, STI, MP,DI, YI, K1STI and K2STI by consider-
ing biplot analysis based on PCA and correlation of
indices with yield under both full irrigation and drought
stress conditions. On this basis they introduced tolerant
genotypes to drought stress.
CONCLUSION
According to the results of this research it can
be seen that, under full irrigation condition the 96
(Ofogh), 75 (Roshan) and 95 (WS-90-18) genotypes,
and in drought stress condition 44 (Misr1), 36 and 80
(Dehdasht) genotypes had the maximum grain yield and
can be considered as promising variety in these areas.
The screening of drought tolerant genotypes using Bip-
lot analysis along with PCA showed that 44(Misr1), 96
(Ofogh), 80(Dehdasht), 70(Seymareh) and 71(Azar2)
genotypes were introduced as the most tolerant to termi-
nal drought stress.
REFERENCES
Ahmadi A, Joudi M and Janmohammadi M. (2009).
Late defoliation and wheat yield: little evidence of post-
anthesis source limitation. Field Crops Research, 113
(1): 90-93.
Alam MS, Rahman AHMM, Nesa MN, Khan SK
and Siddquie NA. (2008). Effect of source and/or sink
restriction on the grain yield in wheat. Journal of
Applied Science Research, 4(3): 258-261.
Journal of Research in Ecology (2017) 5(2): 1264–1275
Hassani et al., 2017
Bouslama M and Schapaugh WT. (1984). Stress toler-
ance in soybean. Part 1. evaluation of three screening
techniques for heat and drought tolerance. Crop
Science, 24: 933-937.
Farshadfar E, Jamshidi B and Aghaee M. (2012).
Biplot analysis of drought tolerance indicators in bread
wheat lanraces of Iran. International Journal of
Agriculture and Crop Sciences, 4(5): 226-233.
Farshadfar E and Javadinia J. (2011). Evaluation of
Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes for drought
tolerance. Seed and Plant Improvement Journal, 27-1
(4): 517-537.
Farshadfar E and Sutka J. (2002). Screening drought
tolerance criteria in maize. Acta Agronomica Hungari-
ca, 50(4): 411-416.
Fernandez GC. (1992). Effective selection criteria for
assessing plant stress tolerance. In: Kuo C. G. (ed) Pro-
ceedings of the International symposium on adaptation
of vegetables and other food crops to temperature and
water stres, Taiwan, 13-18 August 1992. 257-270 p.
Fischer RA and Maurer R. (1978). Drought resistance
in spring wheat cultivars, I. Grain yield response.
Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 29:897-
912.
Galeshi S and Eschoee B. (2001). Post anthesis respose
of spring wheat to water limitation. Journal of Agricul-
tural and Natural Resources Sciences. 4:99-113.
Gavuzzi P, Rizza F, Palumbo M, Campanile RG,
Ricciardi GL and Borghi B. (1997). Evaluation of
field and laboratory predictors of drought and heat toler-
ance in winter cereals. Canadian Journal of Plant
Science, 77(4): 523-531.
Jafari A, Paknejad F and AL-Ahmadi M. (2009).
Evaluation of selection indices for drought tolerance of
Journal of Research in Ecology (2017) 5(2): 1264–1275
corn (Zea mays L.) hybrids. International Journal of
Plant Production, 3(4): 33-38.
Lan J. (1998). Comparison of evaluating methods for
agronomic drought resistance in crops. Acta Agricul-
turae Boreali-Occidentalis Sinica, 7: 85-87.
Majidi MM, Tavakoli V, Mirlohi A and Sabzalian
MR. (2011). Wild safflower species (Carthamus
oxyacanthus Bieb.): A possible source of drought toler-
ance for arid environments. Australian Journal of Crop
Science, 5(8):1055-1063.
Mohammadi R, Armion M, Kahrizi D and Amri A.
(2010). Efficiency of screening techniques for evaluat-
ing durum wheat genotypes under mild drought condi-
tions. International Journal of Plant Production,
4(1): 1735-1743.
Moosavi SS, Yazdi Samadi B, Naghavi MR, Zali AA,
Dashti H and Pourshahbazi A. (2008). Introduction of
new indices to identify relative drought tolerance and
resistance in wheat genotypes. DESERT, 12:165-178.
Naghavi MR, Pour Aboughadare A and Khalili M.
(2013). Evaluation of Drought Tolerance Indices for
Screening Some of Corn (Zea mays L.) Cultivars under
Environmental Conditions. Notulae Scientia Biologicae,
5(3): 388-393.
Najafian G, Jafarnejad A, Ghandi A and Nikoo-
seresht R. (2011). Adaptive traits related to terminal
drought tolerance in hexaploid wheat (Triticum aestivum
L.) genotypes. Crop Breeding Journal, 1(1): 57-73.
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
[Internet]. [NGIA]. C 1995-2012. Available from:
https://geographic.org/geographic_names/
name.php?uni=-4356071&fid=2756&c=iran
Rosielle AA and Hamblin J. (1981). Theoretical aspect
1274
 Hassani et al., 2017
of selection for yield in stress and non-stress environ-
ments. Crop Science, 21(6): 943-946.

Royo C, Abaza M, Blanco R and Garcia del Mortal

LF. (2000). Triticale grain growth and morphometry as
affected by drought stress, late sowing and simulated
drought stress. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology,
27(11): 1051-1059.

Sio-Se Mardeh A, Ahmadi A, Poustini K and Moham-

madi V. (2006). Evaluation of drought resistance indices
under various environmental conditions. Field Crop
Research, 98(2-3): 222-229.

SAS Institute Inc., SAS 9.1.3 Help and Documentation,

Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc., 2002-2004.

Talebi R, Fayaz F and Naji M. (2009). Effective selec-

tion criteria for assessing drought stress tolerance in
drum wheat (Triticum durum Desf.). General and
Applied Plant Physiology, 35(1-2): 64-74.

VSN International (2011). GenStat for Windows. 14th

ed. VSN International Hemel Hempstead UK. Web page:
Genstat.co.uk

Submit your articles online at ecologyresearch.info

Advantages
 Easy online submission
 Complete Peer review
 Affordable Charges
 Quick processing
 Extensive indexing
 You retain your copyright

submit@ecologyresearch.info
www.ecologyresearch.info/Submit.php.

1275 Journal of Research in Ecology (2017) 5(2): 1264–1275