, Skagen, and Smuga and springwheat: Bombona, Brawura, Trappe, Hewilla, Kandela, Katoda, Łagwa, Monsun, Ostka Smolicka, Parabola, Tybalt, Werbena, and Żura were grown at the experimental field of the Institute of Soil Science and Plant Cultivation — State
Authors:S. Sheikh, V. Sikka, R. Behl, and A. Kumar
in the Mediteranean region: New challenges”. Zaragoza, Spain, 12–14 April, 2000. pp. 137–140.
Fischer, R.A., Maurer, O.R. 1976. Crop temperature modification and yield potential in a dwarf springwheat. Crop Sci
Authors:M. Mosaad, A. Morgounov, H. Gomez, M. Jarrah, and S. Rajaram
A collection of 110 wheat varieties from different agroecological zones in Central Asia and the Caucasus (CAC), Russia, and Ukraine were evaluated for growth habit (winter, facultative, spring), growth type (prostrate versus erect), days to heading, resistance to yellow rust and leaf rust, and quality traits. The study was conducted at the experimental farms of International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) at Terbol in Lebanon and Tel Hadya in Syria to identify promising rust resistant wheat cultivars and lines that can be used in crossing program by cooperative Turkey-CIMMYT-ICARDA winter wheat breeding program. The study also aimed to assess the distribution of winter versus facultative versus spring types in the regional gene pool. Higher frequencies of winter types occurred in germplasm from Ukraine, Russia, southern Kazakhstan, Armenia, Uzbekistan and Georgia, whereas the frequencies of spring wheat in Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan were 33% and 20%, respectively. There were significant correlations between growth type, and both growth habit and cold tolerance (
= 0.600*** and 0.57**). This indicates that winter wheat varieties tend to be prostrate and cold tolerant, whereas facultative and spring wheats have are more erect and cold sensitive. Among the tested material 60% of varieties were resistant to yellow rust and 44%—to leaf rust. More than 20 genotypes demonstrated resistance to both rusts and useful variation for other traits proving good parents for crosses.
Authors:S. P. Martynov, T. V. Dobrotvorskaya, A. I. Morgounov, R. A. Urazaliev, and et al.
The genetic diversity of 116 spring bread wheat cultivars released in Kazakhstan from 1929-2004 was studied by means of a genealogical analysis. The tendency of genetic diversity to change over time was traced by analysing a series of n ´ m matrices, where n is the number of released cultivars and m is the number of landrace ancestors. The pool of landrace ancestors of spring wheat cultivars in 1929-2004 contained a total of 114 landraces and old varieties, including 19 from Kazakhstan and Central Asia and 23 from neighbouring regions of Russia. The original ancestors differ significantly in frequency of presence and hence in their importance in the genepool of spring wheats cultivated in Kazakhstan. Significant differences in the contributions of dominant ancestors to cultivars for various regions have been revealed, showing that those ancestors were specifically adapted to different growing conditions. During the past 75 years, genetic diversity has increased due to the wide use of foreign materials in breeding programmes. A more detailed study has shown that during the period analysed, 15 landraces from Kazakhstan and neighbouring regions of Central Asia and Russia (35% of local germplasm) were lost from the pedigrees. The cluster structure of modern cultivars included in the Kazakhstan Official List (2002) was established. By analysing coefficients of parentage, significant differences in the genetic diversity of cultivars from various growing regions were revealed.
Authors:D. Butkus, B. Lukšienė, and M. Konstantinova
Soil and meadow grass were sampled in the whole territory of Lithuania in 1992–2000. For the laboratory experiment, spring
wheat Triticum aestivum L. “Nandu” was used because its root system type is similar to that of perennial meadow grass. The 137Cs soil-to-plant transfer factor of spring wheat was determined and the results were compared with the predicted values using
a compartment model of soil-to-plant transfer and with the results of the field experiment. The results of comparing the measured
and calculated transfer factor using the model show rather good coincidence, however, the calculated values were overestimated.
The reason for overestimation can be that the uptake rate is not influenced only by the soil-to-plant transfer. The results
of the model experiment (from 0.005 m2·kg−1 to 0.053 m2·kg−1) are close to those of the field measurements for grass (from 0.013 m2·kg−1 in 1992–1995 to 0.10 m2·kg−1 in 1999–2000).