AVALIAÇÃO DE CULTIVARES DE GIRASSOL PARA O BRASIL CENTRAL

Livre

0
0
6
8 months ago
Preview
Full text

  

Evaluation of sunflower cultivars

EVALUATION OF SUNFLOWER CULTIVARS FOR

CENTRAL BRAZIL

  1

  2

  1 Willyam Stern Porto ; Claudio Guilherme Portela de Carvalho *; Ronald José Barth Pinto ;

  2

  2 1 Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira ; Ana Cláudia Barneche de Oliveira 2 UEM - Depto. de Agronomia, Av. Colombo 5790 - 87020-900 - Maringá, PR - Brasil.

  Embrapa Soja, C.P. 231 - 86001-970 - Londrina, PR - Brasil.

  • *Corresponding author <cportela@cnpso.embrapa.br>

  

ABSTRACT: Despite a large availability of areas suitable for sunflower cropping in Central Brazil, few

adapted cultivars are available in the market. The objective of this work was to select sunflower

cultivars adapted to this important production region. Experimental data from 2000 to 2004 were

obtained by the National Sunflower Trials, coordinated by Embrapa Soja. The evaluated traits were

grain and oil yields. Two criteria were used for selection of cultivars: i) the general mean obtained from

different environments; ii) partitioning of general mean in favorable and unfavorable environments.

Partitioning of the general mean allowed to detect the specific environment indicated for each cultivar.

For grain yield, the cultivar Helio 251 presented general indication, Milênio and CF 17 could be

indicated for favorable environments and ACA 884, ACA 885 and ACA 872 for the unfavorable ones.

For oil yield, CF 13, Milênio, DK 4030, Helio 250 and ACA 872 had general indication; AG 966, GH 12,

GV 26043, CF 17 and VDH 93 could be indicated for favorable environments, while VDH 488, Helio 251,

ACA 884 and ACA 885 for the unfavorable conditions. In 2002, the partition of the general mean was

not carried out. In this year, general mean of cultivars Exp 37, AG 962, GV 26048 and AG 967 were

overweight the controls for grain yield and the cultivars AG 962, AG 967, GV 26048, AG 972, BRS 191,

Guarani were overweight the controls for oil yield. Key words: Helianthus annuus, genetic breeding, interaction genotypes × environments

  

AVALIAđấO DE CULTIVARES DE GIRASSOL PARA

O BRASIL CENTRAL

RESUMO: Embora haja uma grande área para o cultivo de girassol no Brasil Central, poucas cultivares

adaptadas encontram-se disponíveis no mercado. Esse trabalho teve o objetivo de selecionar

cultivares de girassol para essa região de produção de grãos. Os dados foram obtidos da Rede

Nacional de Ensaios de Avaliação de Cultivares de Girassol, coordenada pela Embrapa Soja, entre

os anos de 2000 e 2004. Os caracteres avaliados foram rendimentos de grão e de óleo. Para a seleção

das cultivares, dois critérios foram utilizados: i) a média geral obtida nos diferentes ambientes de

teste; ii) a decomposição da média geral em ambientes favoráveis e desfavoráveis. A análise da

decomposição da média geral possibilitou detectar para qual tipo de ambiente específico um genótipo

poderia ser indicado. Para rendimento de grãos, o genótipo Helio 251 apresentou indicação geral;

Milênio e CF 17 foram indicados para os ambientes favoráveis e, para os desfavoráveis, ACA 884,

ACA 885 e ACA 872. Para rendimento de óleo, CF 13, Milênio, DK 4030, Helio 250 e ACA 872

tiveram indicação geral; enquanto que AG 966, GH 12, GV 26043, CF 17 e VDH 93 foram indicados

para ambientes favoráveis, e VDH 488, Helio 251, ACA 884 e ACA 885 para os desfavoráveis. Em

2002, não foi realizada a decomposição da média geral. Nesse ano, Exp 37, AG 962, GV 26048 e AG

967 destacaram-se para rendimento de grãos e AG 962, AG 967, GV 26048, AG 972, BRS 191, Guarani,

para rendimento de óleo. Palavras-chave: Helianthus annuus, melhoramento genético, interação genótipos × ambientes ergy from the biological fuel production. Therefore,

  INTRODUCTION grown area and grain production increased 60 and There is an increasing utilization of sunflower 47%, respectively, between 2002/2003 and 2004/2005 in Brazil, due to its use as raw material for silage, oil (Reunião, 2005). Most of the 82.000 ha cultivated in

production and to its potential as a new source of en- 2004/2005 were sowed in Central Brazil, following to

  

Porto et al.

the major summer growing period, mainly in the States of São Paulo (36.7%), Mato Grosso (17.4%), Goiás (10.2%) and Mato Grosso do Sul (8.8%) (Reunião, 2005).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

  5

  2 M m u t u a v o N ) F T F (

  3

  2 "

  4 4 ' 9 4 º

  3 1 " 6 5 '

  4 º

  6

  4 L e t s e o d a r e v a m i r P ) F T F (

  6

  1

  2 "

  2 3 ' 3 3 º

  5 1 " 6 4 '

  7 1 º

  4

  5

  5

  5

  4

  5

  4

  2

  7

  5 J a r a i c a ) S T F (

  1

  2 "

  5 5 ' 7 5 º

  5 1 " 6 '

  8 5 º

  5

  4 O G í a t a J

  7

  6

  3 J a r i e m i c s u ) S T F (

  2

  2 " 2 '

  3 º

  6 1 " 4 '

  3 5 º

  6

  3 2 ,

  ) S T F (

  4 2 , 3 2 ,

  3 2 ' 5 5 º

  8 1 " 9 1 '

  7 1 º

  8

  4

  3

  6

  8 F D a n i tl a n a l P ) S T F (

  2

  1

  2 " 3 '

  5 3 º 5 1 "

  3 '

  2 4 º

  7

  4

  7

  1

  2 "

  1 ) 2 d n a F T F (

  7

  8

  2 ) 2 d n a F T F (

  2

  2 "

  3 5 ' 2 5 º

  7 1 " 2 5 '

  2 4 º

  1

  5

  7 e d r e V o i R ) S T F (

  8 G M a i d n â l r e b U ) S T F (

  1

  2 " 3 '

  6 4 º 7 1 "

  5 ' 1 º

  1

  5

  6

  3

  5

  3 5 º

  On some Brazilian States it is a common agri- cultural practice the summer double cropping, mean- ing that the main crop is planted from October to early November, allowing its harvesting by February. Then a second crop follows in February/March, taking ad- vantage of the adequate temperature and rainfall con- ditions. Sunflower is one of the crops suitable as the second summer crop.

  2 " 4 '

  7 1 ' 5 1 º

  1 2 " 2 '

  9 1 º

  8

  4

  5

  6 ó s il o p n i d r a J ) S T F (

  1

  1 º

  3

  1 2 " 5 '

  5 4 º

  7

  4

  9

  5 M i r u d n a ) S T F (

  4 2 ,

  2 ) 2 d n a F T F (

  2 "

  7 J l a b a c i t o b a ) F T F (

  2

  C s o h n i v a r ) S T F (

  The expansion of the sunflower crop as the second summer crop in Brazil depends on a constant evaluation of new cultivars obtained by the identifica- tion of superior materials able to express high yield and acceptable quality in the different regions. Thus the genetic progress of sunflower in Brazil plays an im- portant role to make more feasible the necessary eco- nomic returns compared to other summer crops.

  Since 1989, the evaluation and selection of hy- brids and varieties of sunflower from several compa- nies are being made through of the National Sunflower Trials, coordinated by Embrapa Soja and supported by the contribution of public and private institutions. The aim of this work was to select sunflower cultivars evaluated in the Trial Network carried out between 2000 and 2004 in Central Brazil.

  Data were used from the National Sunflower Trials, coordinated by Embrapa Soja. Trials were in- stalled from 2000 to 2004 in several locations of the states of Goiás, Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul, Minas Gerais, São Paulo and Distrito Federal (Table 1).

  The cultivars were sown in February/March, in randomized block designs with four replicates. Each plot consisted of four rows 6.0 m long, spaced from 0.7 to 0.9 m. Only the two central rows were used for data collection. Plants located until 0.5 m apart from the tip of each central row were also discarded, re- sulting in a useful area from 7 to 9 m

  2 per plot, de- pending on the space adopted. All the recommended cultural practices were observed to allow an optimum plant development.

  The evaluated cultivars were simple and triple hybrids and open pollinated varieties developed by the companies ADVANTA, CATI, DOW AgroSciences, Embrapa Soja, La Tijereta and HELIANTHUS DO BRASIL. Commercial hybrids M 734 (DOW AgroSciences) and Agrobel 960 (La Tijereta) were used as controls. In 2001, only the hybrid M734 was used as control. The evaluated traits were grain and oil yields. Cultivar evaluation was carried out during two years in the Final Trials of the First Year of Evalua-

  

Table 1 - Year of assessment, altitude and geographical coordinates of the National Sunflower Trial locations in the period

from 2000 to 2004.

  S e t a t n o i t a c o L A 1 t n e m s s e s s f o r a e Y e d u ti t a L e d u ti g n o L e d u ti tl A m P S

  3 ) 2 d n a F T F (

  8

  2

  2 "

  5 2 ' 2 º

  1 2 " 6 4 '

  3 4 º

  7

  4

  8

  3 2 ,

  2 "

  3 1 " 1 3 '

  4

  9

  7 D s o d a r u o ) S T F (

  4 2 ,

  3

  2 "

  6 1 ' 3 1 º

  2 2 " 2 '

  8 4 º

  5

  2

  3

  4 T M P s i c e r a o d o v o N o p m a C

  ) S T F (

  4 2 , 3 2 ,

  1 ) 2 d n a F T F (

  3

  2 "

  1 3 ' 4 º

  5

  7 3 º

  2 º 1 '

  2 5 ' 3 4 º

  3 2 " 9 1 '

  9 1 º

  9

  4

  1

  7 M l e u n a o ã S ) S T F (

  3

  2 "

  2 2 " 4 1 '

  8 1 " 2 2 '

  4 3 º

  8

  4

  9

  7 S M S l u o d o ã d a p a h C ) S T F (

  4 2 ,

  3

  2 "

  9 3 ' 7 4 º

1 FTF - Evaluations made in Final Trials of the First Year of Evaluation and FTS - Evaluations made in Final Trials of the Second Year of Evaluation.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

  The interaction cultivars × environments was significant in the joint analysis of variance, indicating a different performance of cultivars over the evaluated environments, and pointing out the importance of stud- ies of yield components in specific environments (Table 2). The presence of G × E interaction in sunflower yield tests has also been reported by Embrapa (1996; 1997; 1998; 1999; 2000); Lu'Quez et al. (2002) and De la Vega & Chapman (2006). The experimental ac- curacy was satisfactory according the classification of Pimentel Gomes (1985), since the coefficients of varia- tion (CV) were comprised between 11.83% and 14.33% for grain yield and between 12.23% and 14.51% for oil yield. General means for grain yield over year were remarkable superior to the approximately 1500 kg ha

  

Evaluation of sunflower cultivars

tion (FTF) and in Final Trials of the Second Year of Evaluation (FTS) (Table 1). From 2001 to 2004, eleven, fifteen, ten and six cultivars were evaluated. Evaluations made in 2001, include the experimental data obtained from the Final Trials of First Year of Evalua- tion 2000 and from the Final Trials of Second Year of Evaluation 2001, with similar procedure for other years of evaluation.

  The analysis of variance was performed on grain and oil yields for each environment (location and year). As the locations of the trials included in the FTF were not exactly the same ones as those chosen for the FTS, a joint analysis of environment for each group of cultivars was carried out. For this, a test to verify the homogeneity of residual variances was applied. In this test, variances were considered as homogeneous when the ratio between the larger and the smaller re- sidual mean square was smaller than 7 (Pimentel Gomes, 1985). Moreover, trials with coefficients of variation higher than 20% (Pimentel Gomes, 1985) and experiments with major problems (birds attacks, drought and serious incidence of plant diseases, like Alternaria) were not included in the joint analysis of variance.

  Two criteria were used for selection of culti- vars: i) the general mean obtained from different en- vironments; and ii) partitioning of general mean in fa- vorable and unfavorable environments. It was consid- ered favorable environment those with superior gen- eral mean and unfavorable one those with inferior gen- eral mean (Verma et al., 1978).

  • 1
  • 1

  IDMG method (Indication Method - Partitioning of General Mean) (Porto et al., 2007). When the mean of a certain cultivar is higher than the control mean in favorable but not in unfavorable environments, this cultivar is regarded oneself as fitted for favorable en- vironments, and vice versa. On the other hand, if a certain cultivar is superior in both environments, its indication is general. The partitioning of the general mean was not calculated when the number of favor- able and unfavorable environments was equal or less than three. The statistical analyses were performed with the software Genes (Cruz, 2001).

  2

  3

  5 7 .

  5

  7

  4 9 ,

  7

  9 1 * * 5 .

  1

  3

2 .

  1

  8 1 .

  1

  3

  2

  6

  7 4 ,

  3 2 * * 4 8 .

  6

  6

  2

  2 9 .

  1

  2

  1 2 .

  5

  5

  6

  8

  2

  4

  8 2 .

  1

  4

  1 5 .

  3

  4

  4 6 ,

  5 2 * * 6 4 .

  7

  4

  7

8 .

  1

  4

  3 3 .

  1

  7

  8

  9 2 ,

  6

  4 2 * * 6 7 .

  3 2 .

  2 3 ,

  In the analysis of the general mean, Duncan test (P < 0.05) was performed to verify significance of differences among cultivars, as well as the com- parison of means among each evaluated cultivar and the controls. The favorable and unfavorable environ- ment means of each cultivar were compared with the control mean in each environment, according to the

  2 V C

  2

  4 4 .

  2

  1

  1

  9 2 ,

  1 2 * * 5 4 .

  V C n a e M

  

4

A G M Q

  3 M n a e

  O li A G M Q

  1

7 .

  1 - ) G n i a r

  1 ( a h g k d l e i Y

  Y r a e

  4 General mean, in kg ha

  3 CV: Coefficient of variation (%).

  2 QMGA: Mean square for the interaction cultivars × environments.

  1 Evaluations made in 2001 (sowing date on February/March) include the experimental data obtained in the

Final Trials of First Year of Evaluation 2000 and Final Trials of Second Year of Evaluation 2001, with similar procedure for other years

of evaluation.

  ) of sunflower cultivars evaluated in the National Sunflower Trials, coordinated by Embrapa, in the period from 2000 to 2004.

  Table 2 - Joint analyses of variance for grain and oil yields (kg ha

  (P < 0.05) only when a large difference among their means was observed for both evaluated traits (Table 3), as reported by Embrapa (1996; 1997; 1998; 1999; 2000). Therefore selection of sunflower cultivars was made based on the difference between their perfor- mance and the mean of controls, so that selected ma-

  , observed in Brazilian commercial agri- culture, according to data from CONAB (2005). In spite of the acceptable values of CV, dif- ferences among cultivars were detected by Duncan test

  1

  

3

  4

  6

  7 1 * * 4 9 .

  6

4 .

  1

  1

  3 8 .

  3

  7

  1

  2 9 ,

  7

  2 2 * * 9 6 .

  8

  1

  9

  7 3 .

  1

  3

  1 4 .

  5

  1

  4 4 ,

  8 1 * * 4 6 .

  2

  • Significant at 1% for F test.
    • 1 .
    • ) H (

  • ) H (
  • ) V ( l o s s i t a C d

  8

  5 H 3 o il e b 5 .

  8

  9 7 ) H (

  1

  6 4 .

  7 C 8 A A a

  2

  2 7 ) H (

  2 3 .

  2 V G c b a

  6

  4

  6 8 ) H (

  8

  4

  3 D 4 K a 6 .

  9 ) H (

  3

  6 2 .

  7 M b a

  3

  4

  8 8 ) H (

  2 9 .

  7 M a

  3

  4

  8 ) H (

  4 8 ) H (

  7 7 ) H (

  9 7 ) H (

  6 A 9 G d c b a 9 .

  5 8 ) H (

  5

  1 2 .

  2 G 1 H a

  7 ) H (

  9

  6

  1 V c 6 .

  3

  4

  6

  6

  5 4 .

  5 H 2 o il e a

  1

  1 7 ) H (

  1

  4 2 .

  7 G 9 B A d c b a

  2

  5 8 ) H (

  9

  8 7 .

  6 A 9 G a

  4

  6 G 9 B A b a 6 .

  8 C 8 A A a

  4 2 n a e m l o r t n o C 2 7 .

  1 -

  2 ( a h g k d l e i y li O

  2

  8

  9

  8 9 n a e m l o r t n o C 1 3 .

  5

  7 7 .

  1

  6 1 n a e m l o r t n o C

  9

  7

  6

  1

  6 4 .

  2 C n a e m l o r t n o

  5

  4

  1 9 n a e m l a r e n e G 6 8 .

  3 2 .

  1

  7 1 n a e m l a r e n e G

  2

  8 1 n a e m l a r e n e G 5 4 .

  6

  3

  )

  2

  7

  5 H 2 o il e a

  9 8 ) H (

  4

  2 4 .

  I M a

  I N E L

  9 ) H ( O

  3

  1 4 .

  6 A 9 G a

  2 8 ) H (

  7

  1 4 .

  2 8 ) H (

  2

  1

  9 8 .

  6 G 9 B A a

  2

  1 9 ) H (

  7 3 .

  3 C 1 F a

  2 C r a v i tl u n a e M r a v i tl u C n a e M r a v i tl u C n a e M r a v i tl u C n a e M ) H (

  4

  2

  3

  2

  4

  6 7 .

  4 1 - - - - G n a e m l a r e n e

  1 1 .

  1

  3 6 .

  8 E 3 p x f e d c

  1 6 ) H (

  3

  9 9 .

  H 3 T b

  3 6 - - ) H (

  2

  2 3 .

  1 6 ) V ( l o s s i t a C a

  5

  6 E 3 p x f e d c

  9 4 .

  7 7 ) H (

  9

  1 5 .

  3 D 9 H V a

  8 6 - - ) H (

  5

  9 5 .

  9 V a

  6

  4

  2 6 ) H (

  1

  1 6 - - - -

  5

  3 E 3 p x f e d c

  5 7 n a e m l a r e n e G 8 2 .

  1

  6

  7 7 n a e m l o r t n o C 3 8 .

  2

  8 6 n a e m l o r t n o C 2 7 .

  4

  2 8 n a e m l o r t n o C 9 3 .

  1

  9 2 .

  8 C n a e m l o r t n o

  2

  4

  1

  5 5 - - - -

  6 6 n a e m l a r e n e G 2 .

  2

  1 8 n a e m l a r e n e G 2 9 .

  9

  7 3 .

  9 4 - - - - G n a e m l a r e n e

  9

  1 6 .

  7 E 3 p x f

  4 5 - - - -

  9

  8 5 .

  6 5 .

  9 7 ) H (

  8

  7 3 .

  6 ) H (

  9

  6

  5 6 .

  2 E 1 a p a r b m e

  2

  4 7 ) V (

  7

  8 3 .

  8 C 8 A A a

  5

  4 7 ) H (

  9 R 1 S B e d c b a

  8 D 4 H V a

  1

  2 8 ) H (

  1

  9 2 .

  7 M a

  3

  4

  7 ) H (

  3

  4

  8 7 .

  5 7 ) V ( l o s s i tl u M d

  8

  1 9 .

  1

  2

  7 C 1 F a 2 .

  3 7 - - ) H (

  6

  3 5 .

  6 A 9 G a

  5 6 ) H (

  9

  9 6 .

  7 M e d c b

  3

  4

  1 8 ) H (

  2 V G a .

  9

  6

  4

  3

  4 7 - - ) H (

  5

  7 3 .

  8 V a

  1

  9

  8

  9 6 ) H (

  6

  1 8 ) H ( i n a r a u G e d c b a 7 .

  1 7 .

  3

  9

  4

  4

  9 1 ) H (

  8

  8

  7 3 .

  8 C 8 A A b a

  4

  8 1 ) H (

  6

  5

  2 V G c b a 3 .

  6

  8

  1 V c

  9 1 ) H (

  5

  5 6 .

  7 C 1 F a

  2 ) H (

  1

  9

  7

  9 5 .

  6 A 9 G b

  4 2 ) H (

  3

  3

  2 3 .

  5 H 2 o il e b a

  7 C 8 A A b a 9 .

  7 5 .

  3 D 4 K a

  1 ) H (

  9

  8

  6

  6 2 .

  5 H 3 o il e d

  8

  9 1 ) H (

  5

  1

  2

  7

  7 1 ) H (

  2

  5

  5 4 .

  6 G 9 B A d c b a

  7

  8 1 ) H (

  9

  6

  6 3 .

  3 C 1 F a

  2 ) H (

  4 7 .

  1

  8

  2

  6

  6 4 .

  7 M a

  3

  4

  ) H (

  3 C r a v i tl u n a e M r a v i tl u C n a e M r a v i tl u C n a e M

  2 M n a e

  2 C r a v i tl u

  4

  2

  3

  2

  7 E 3 p x a

  1

  2

  1

  )

  1 -

  ( a h g k d l e i y n i a r G

  3 Means followed by the same letter did not differ at the Duncan test (P ≤ 0.05).

  2 H = hybrid and V = open pollinated variety.

  1 Evaluations made in 2001 (sowing date on February/March) include the experimental data obtained in the Final Trials of First Year of Evaluation 2000 and Final Trials of Second Year of Evaluation 2001, with similar procedure for others years of evaluation.

  

Table 3 - Means of sunflower cultivars evaluated in the National Sunflower Trials, coordinated by Embrapa, between 2000

and 2004, for grain and oil yields.

  In the period of 2000-2004, the cultivars that presented a general mean higher than the controls for grain yield were Exp 37, AG 962, GV 26048, AG 967, Helio 251 and ACA 884. For oil yield, the best culti-

  

Porto et al.

terials were those with means higher than that of con- trols. This criterion is rigorous whereas it causes a greater strictness in discriminating cultivars in com- parison with selection based on results from the Duncan test, therefore it reduces the number of se- lected cultivars. Despite this constraint, this criterion has been used by the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply (MAPA) for the registra- tion of new soybean, wheat and bean cultivars. No cri- terion was established for sunflower up to now.

  4 2 ) H (

  8 7 .

  9 1 ) H (

  8

  6

  8

  6 5 .

  6 G 9 B A b a

  2

  2 2 ) H (

  8

  2 3 .

  I M a

  I N E L

  2 ) H ( O

  3

  1

  1

  7 M a 4 .

  3

  4

  1 2 ) H (

  5

  2

  6 3 .

  7 M a

  3

  4

  9 1 ) H (

  8

  5

  8 1 ) H (

  1

  7 G 9 B A d c 5 .

  8 D 4 H V a

  8

  7 1 - - ) H (

  3

  8

  3 4 .

  9 V b a

  6

  4

  6 1 ) H (

  6

  3

  2

  1

  8 1 ) H (

  5

  2

  2 V G a 7 .

  6

  4

  3

  8 1 - - ) H (

  1

  9

  8 1 .

  6 A 9 G b a

  8 4 .

  3

  7

  9 R 1 S B d c 9 .

  9 8 .

  5 1 - - - -

  8

  4

  3 6 .

  3 E 3 p x d c

  6 1 - - - -

  9

  8 7 .

  8 E 3 p x d c

  6 1 - - - -

  1

  1

  8 1 ) V ( i a u g u r U C A

  4 1 ) H (

  1

  8 2 .

  H 3 T b

  6 1 - - ) H (

  3

  2

  1 8 .

  6 1 ) V ( l o s s i t a C b

  4

  1

  I d c 3 .

  6 1 ) H (

  6 E 3 p x d c b 7 .

  4

  3

  8 C 8 A A b a

  5

  6 1 ) H (

  8

  5

  8 1 ) H ( i n a r a u G d c b a 3 4 .

  8

  1

  2 5 .

  2 G 1 H a

  1 ) H (

  9

  8

  1

  8 9 .

  9 1 ) V ( l o s s i tl u M d

  1

  9

  9 2 .

  5 H 2 o il e b a

  7 1 ) H (

  1

  3

  9 4 .

  7 M d c b a

  3

  8 1 .

  1

  8 1 ) H (

  6 1 ) H (

  5

  9

  6 A 9 G a 4 .

  6

  8 1 - - ) H (

  5

  5

  7 8 .

  8 V b a

  1

  9

  8

  8

  9 1 ) V (

  1

  6 9 .

  6 A 9 G d c b a

  8 1 ) H (

  6

  7

  3 D 9 H V a 9 .

  1 ) H (

  7

  5

  5

  2 E 1 a p a r b m e .

  2

  • ) V ( l o s s i t a C f e d
  • ) V ( i a u g u r U C A I f e
  • ) H (

  

Evaluation of sunflower cultivars

vars were CF 13, Milênio, DK 4030, AG 966, GH 12, AG 962, AG 967, GV 26048, AG 972, BRS 191, Gua- rani, Helio 250, Helio 251 and ACA 872. Only culti- vars AG 962, AG 967, GV 26048 and Helio 251 pre- sented a better performance for the two evaluated com- ponents of yield (Table 3). Thus, cultivars not always had a good performance for both traits. The use of cultivars with outstanding performance in only one of the evaluated components depends on the farmer pref-

Table 4 - Partition of means of sunflower cultivars evaluated in favorable and unfavorable environments for grain and oil

yields, from experiments carried out from 2000 to 2004.

  2

  6 6 .

  5

  8 9 ) H (

  8

  5 H 3 o il e 5 .

  4

  8

  8

  6 4 .

  3

  7

  6

  7 5 .

  6

  2

  1 ) H (

  6

  6 A 9 G

  8 7 .

  9

  5

  8

  6 6 .

  6

  2

  8

  4

  3

  9

  8 8 .

  7

  4

  7 1 .

  4

  1

  2

  1 ) H (

  3 D 4 K 6 .

  6

  9 7 .

  8

  3 3 .

  7

  4

  7

  5 9 .

  2 1 ) H (

  2

  7 C 8 A A

  6 4 .

  1

  2

  6

  7 M

  1 1 ) H (

  1 2 .

  5

  5

  8

  5 3 .

  7

  6

  6

  9 6 .

  5

  4

  1 ) H (

  8 C 8 A A

  6 7 .

  8

  5

  7

  1 3 .

  3

  8

  6

  3 9 .

  1

  2 G 1 H

  8

  4 9 .

  6

  5

  9 1 ) H (

  1

  5 H 2 o il e

  5 4 .

  6

  7

  7

  2 9 .

  6

  5

  6 7 .

  6

  5

  5 9 ) H (

  4

  3

  1 V 6 .

  6

  9

  7

  9 9 .

  5

  6 2 .

  6 2 .

  3

  8 7 .

  8

  9

  8

  2

  2 9 .

  7

  8

  1

  5 3 .

  3

  1

  2 ( a h g k d l e i y li O 1 - )

  6

  1

  2

  3

  2

  4

  2 C r a v i tl u M G M U M F r a v i tl u C M G M U M F r a v i tl u C M G M U M F ) H (

  3 C 1 F

  7 3 .

  1

  9 2 .

  4

  3 2 n a e m l o r t n o C 1 3 .

  4

  7 6 .

  1

  8

  4

  2 C n a e m l o r t n o

  6 4 .

  6

  4

  2

  2 8 .

  1

  2

  7

  2 3 .

  5 8 .

  9

  7

  4 2 n a e m l o r t n o C 7 7 .

  5

  8

  9

  1

  9 6 .

  6

  6

  1

  2

  7

  4

  4

  4

  9

  8

  9 2 .

  9

  1

  7

  2 9 .

  7

  2

  1 1 ) H (

  3

  I M

  7 M

  2 9 .

  8

  8

  1 1 .

  2

  8

  6

  3 1 .

  9

  9 9 ) H (

  2 4 .

  I N E L

  3

  9

  1 1 ) H (

  5 H 2 o il e

  1 4 .

  7

  2

  8

  4 5 .

  9

  7

  6

  3 2 .

  4 1 ) H (

  1 ) H ( O

  6 A 9 G

  1 4 .

  3

  9

  2 9 .

  6

  8

  7 4 .

  7

  1

  2

  7 8 ) V ( l o s s i tl u M

  4

  1 3 .

  6

  3 6 .

  1

  5

  6 8 .

  4

  1 8 - - - - ) H (

  H 3 T

  9 9 .

  3

  1

  2 9 .

  3

  6

  9

  4 8 .

  7 7 - - - - - - - - G n a e m l a r e n e

  7 3 .

  9

  1

  8 8 .

  1

  7

  6 9 .

  6

  2

  1 1 n a e m l a r e n e G 1 .

  3 D 9 H

  9 V

  9 5 .

  5

  8

  6

  2 9 .

  4

  5

  5 6 .

  1

  8 8 - - - - ) H (

  V

  2 3 .

  1 5 .

  9

  7

  7

  5 8 .

  2

  2

  6

  9 3 .

  8

  8 9 ) V ( l o s s i t a C

  7

  1

  4

  8

  1

  6 9 n a e m l o r t n o C 2 7 .

  2

  7

  7

  3 9 .

  1

  4

  6

  1 9 .

  6 9 n a e m l o r t n o C 3 8 .

  7

  6

  1

  9 4 .

  7

  6

  7 7 .

  5

  1

  2

  1

  erence at the time of choice a hybrid variety and also must be based on the effective politics of trade by the sunflower industry. Currently, industries grant a bo- nus for cultivars whose oil content is above 40%. When the bonus is paid, farmers prefer hybrids with higher oil content then those with higher grain yield.

  3 1 .

  1

  5

  3 8 .

  7

  7 7 .

  2

  3

  6

  8 3 .

  8

  2 9 n a e m l a r e n e G 7 2 .

  4

  2

  8

  6

  6

  8

  6

  5 1 .

  9

  9

  1 C n a e m l o r t n o

  9 2 .

  1

  2

  8

  2 4 .

  6

  4 1 ) H (

  3

  5 6 .

  7

  1 5 .

  8

  6

  6

  8 6 .

  5

  6 8 ) V (

  2

  2 M 1 B E

  6

  7

  9

  6

  1 3 .

  8

  9

  5

  3 3 .

  3

  9

  8 ) H (

  8

  4

  8 3 .

  V

  7 M

  7

  4 4 .

  3

  1

  6

  4 4 .

  7

  7

  9 ) H (

  4

  3

  9 2 .

  8 C 8 A A

  1

  2

  8

  2 4 .

  6

  1

  7

  3 1 .

  1

  6 9 ) H (

  5

  8 D 4 H

  1 9 .

  2

  5 7 .

  8 4 .

  6

  7

  6 8 .

  2

  9 9 ) H (

  6 A 9 G

  3 5 .

  6

  3

  7

  1

  2

  6

  9 6 .

  8

  3 9 - - - - ) H (

  7 C 1 F 2 .

  1

  9

  7

  4 7 .

  2

  6 5 .

  1

  2 V G .

  9

  8 V

  1

  8

  2 7 .

  5

  2

  7 5 .

  5

  4 9 ) H (

  8

  9

  1

  7 3 .

  6

  5

  4

  7 1 .

  8

  2

  6

  7 2 .

  1

  2 9 - - - - ) H (

  3

  4

  8

  1

  1 Evaluations made in 2001 include the experimental data obtained in the Final Trials of First Year of Evaluation 2000 and Final Trials of

Second Year of Evaluation 2001, in the same way, for many years of evaluation. Partition of the general mean was not performed in 2002,

because in those experiments the number of favorable environments was less than four.

  9

  8

  1

  6 6 .

  3

  9

  3

  2 ) H (

  3 C 1 F

  6 3 .

  6

  8

  1

  1 7 .

  5

  2

  5

  1

  7 5 .

  9

  3 2 ) H (

  2

  7 C 8 A A 9 .

  1

  1

  5 6 .

  9

  7

  3

  1

  6 2 ) H (

  4

  8 C 8 A A

  7 3 .

  8

  8

  9

  1

  3 4 .

  2

  2

  7

  1

  1 3 .

  9

  4

  2 2 ) H (

  4

  3

  1 V

  2 3 .

  7

  5

  1

  1

  5 H 2 o il e

  8

  1

  5 3 .

  9

  5

  1

  9 1 .

  9

  7

  2 2 ) H (

  9 2 .

  5

  9

  1

  9

  1

  4 2 .

  9

  6

  5

  1

  4 3 .

  9

  8

  7 5 .

  6 5 .

  6

  7

  6

  6

  1

  4 6 .

  4

  3

  2 2 ) H (

  8

  5 H 3 o il e

  6 2 .

  8

  3 D 4 K

  9

  1

  9 1 .

  1

  4

  6

  1 6 .

  7

  1

  4

  2 ) H (

  1 6 .

  4

  2 2 ) V ( l o s s i tl u M

  7

  3

  7 M

  6 3 .

  2

  5

  1

  2

  6 1 .

  6

  6

  1

  4 2 ) H (

  5 5 .

  8

  3

  5 2 ) H (

  4

  3

  7 M 4 .

  1

  8

  3

  2

  4

  7

  8

  4

  2 H = hybrid and V = open pollinated variety.

  3 GM = general mean.

  4 UM = average in unfavorable environments.

  

5

FM = average in favorable environments.

  ( a h g k d l e i y n i a r G 1 - )

  1

  2 1

  3

  2

  4

  2 C r a v i tl u 2 M G 3 M U 4 M F 5 C r a v i tl u M G M U M F r a v i tl u C M G M U M F ) H (

  3

  9

  7 M

  6 4 .

  6

  4

  2

  2 8 .

  1

  2

  7

  1

  2 3 .

  4 1 .

  8

  5

  1

  6

  9

  3 2 ) H (

  6 A 9 G

  9 5 .

  7

  9

  1

  2 4 .

  6

  8

  4 5 .

  6

  9

  1

  6

  2 ) H (

  7 C 1 F

  5 6 .

  5

  9

  1

  3 4 .

  3

  1 7 .

  9

  1

  7

  7 1 .

  7

  3 ) H ( O

  I N E L

  I M

  2 3 .

  8

  2

  2

  4 9 .

  2

  5

  1

  1

  9 4 .

  5

  3

  6 2 ) H (

  1

  5 H 2 o il e

  4 7 .

  3

  4

  2 4 .

  6

  8 9 .

  7

  8 4 .

  7

  7

  3

  1

  5 6 .

  9

  9 2 - - - - ) H (

  8

  8 D 4 H

  V

  1

  1

  3

  8

  1

  6 9 .

  2

  8

  5

  1

  4 8 .

  2

  6

  1 2 .

  7

  1 8 .

  8

  1

  5 1 .

  1

  9

  1 2 - - - - ) H (

  3

  4

  6

  2 V G 7 .

  2

  5

  1

  3

  8 7 .

  6

  1

  5

  1 6 .

  3 2 ) H (

  4

  6

  9 V

  3 4 .

  8

  1 2 ) V ( l o s s i t a C

  2

  4

  2 3 .

  3

  5

  1

  2 3 .

  4

  4

  3 2 n a e m l a r e n e G 3 2 .

  1

  9

  1

  4

  1

  9

  5

  1

  4 1 .

  8

  2 2 n a e m l a r e n e G 5 8 .

  4

  5

  2

  1 1 .

  8

  5 2 .

  8

  3

  1

  6

  1

  8 5 .

  5

  2

  4

  1 4 .

  4

  8 1 - - - - ) H (

  H 3 T

  8 2 .

  4

  6

  1 1 .

  4

  4

  1

  1

  2 3 .

  4

  4

  7 1 - - - - - - - - G n a e m l a r e n e

  1 7 .

  3

  4

  7

  8

  8 3 .

  8 C 8 A A

  8 1 .

  1

  1

  9

  1

  9 9 .

  3

  7

  1

  8

  4 2 ) H (

  1

  1 2 ) V (

  2

  2 M 1 B E .

  5

  5

  7

  1

  6 2 .

  1

  7

  5

  6

  1

  2 ) H (

  3

  9

  1 4 .

  4

  8

  5

  1

  2 2 .

  2

  8

  3

  2 G 1 H

  7

  2 5 .

  1

  8

  8

  1

  9 7 .

  1

  4

  4

  1

  2 8 .

  4

  9 6 .

  2 2 .

  8

  6

  5

  1

  9 2 .

  4

  4

  1 2 - - - - ) H (

  6

  6 A 9 G 4 .

  9

  5

  1

  4 4 .

  6 4 .

  5 1 .

  8

  3

  3 2 ) H (

  6 A 9 G

  8 1 .

  9

  1

  8

  1

  7

  1

  9

  4

  1

  2 ) H (

  3 D 9 H

  V 9 .

  7

  6

  8

  1

  4 5 .

  5

  8

  1

  8

  3 8 .

  5

  7

  3 2 ) H (

  8

  9

  1

  8 V

  7 8 .

  5

  5

  From 2000 to 2004, the National Sunflower Trials evaluated simple and triple hybrids and open pol- linated varieties. In this period, no open pollinated va-

  

Porto et al.

riety was greater than the control mean (Table 3). These values varied from 3.3% (IAC Uruguai in 2002) to 23.3% (Embrapa 122 in 2004) for grain yield and from 18.2% (Catissol in 2004) to 24.0% (Embrapa 122 in 2004). Nevertheless, the use of open pollinated va- rieties may be meaningful for the farmholders, due to low seed price and less environmental risk (water defi- cit), when sunflower crop is sown on February/March.

  da Rede Oficial, 1997/1998 e 1998. Londrina: EMBRAPA, CNPSo, 1998. 92p. (Documentos, 122).

  Theoretical and Applied Genetics, v.53, p.89-91, 1978.

  VERMA, M.M.; CHAHAL, G.S.; MURTY, B.R. Limitations of conventional regression analysis: a proposed modification.

  REUNIÃO NACIONAL DE PESQUISA DE GIRASSOL, 16., Londrina, 2005. Ata... Londrina: Embrapa Soja, 2005. 111p.

  Genética quantitativa em plantas autógamas; aplicações ao melhoramento do feijoeiro. Goiânia: UFG, 1993. 271p.

  RAMALHO, M.A.P.; SANTOS, J.B.; ZIMMERMANN, M.J.O.

  Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira, v.42, p.491-499, 2007.

  13.ed. São Paulo: USP-ESALQ, 1985. 468p. PORTO, W.S.; CARVALHO, C.G.P.; PINTO, R.J.B. Adaptabilidade e estabilidade como critérios para seleção de genótipos de girassol.

  PEREYRA, V.R. Stability and adaptability of cultivars in non- balanced yield trials. Comparison of methods for selecting ‘high oleic’ sunflower hybrids for grain yield and quality. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, v.188, p.225-234, 2002. PIMENTEL GOMES, F. Curso de estatística experimental.

  (Documentos, 151). LU´QUEZ, J.E.; AGUIRREZÁBAL, L.A.N.; AGÜERO, M.E.;

  EMPRESA BRASILEIRA DE PESQUISA AGROPECUÁRIA - EMBRAPA. Informes da avaliação de genótipos de girassol, 1999/2000 e 2000. Londrina: Embrapa Soja, 2000. 92p.

  da Rede Oficial, 1998/1999 e 1999. Londrina: Embrapa Soja, 1999. 99p. (Documentos, 122).

  EMPRESA BRASILEIRA DE PESQUISA AGROPECUÁRIA - EMBRAPA. Informes da avaliação de genótipos de girassol

  EMPRESA BRASILEIRA DE PESQUISA AGROPECUÁRIA - EMBRAPA. Informes da avaliação de genótipos de girassol

  For selection of sunflower cultivars normally used general means of grain and oil content from dif- ferent environments (Embrapa, 1996; 1997; 1998; 1999; 2000). Although it should be taken into account the specific adaptation of the favorable and unfavor- able environments (Ramalho et al., 1993; Cruz & Regazzi, 1994; Lu'Quez et al., 2002; De la Vega & Chapman, 2006). In this study, the method of the

  da Rede Oficial, 1996/1997 e 1997. Londrina: EMBRAPA, CNPSo, 1997. 116p. (Documentos, 110).

  EMPRESA BRASILEIRA DE PESQUISA AGROPECUÁRIA - EMBRAPA. Informes da avaliação de genótipos de girassol

  da Rede Oficial, 1995/1996 e 1996. Londrina: EMBRAPA, CNPSo, 1996. 85p. (Documentos, 98).

  EMBRAPA. Informes da avaliação de genótipos de girassol

  DE LA VEGA, A.J.; CHAPMAN, S.C. Defining sunflower selection strategies for a highly heterogeneous target population of environments. Crop Science, v.46, p.136-144, 2006. EMPRESA BRASILEIRA DE PESQUISA AGROPECUÁRIA -

  ao melhoramento genético. Viçosa: UFV, Imprensa Universitária, 1994. 390p.

  Universitária, 2001. 648p. CRUZ, C.D.; REGAZZI, A.J. Modelos biométricos aplicados

  Available at http://www.conab.gov.br. Accessed 15 Nov. 2005. CRUZ, C.D. Programa Genes: versão Windows; aplicativo computacional em genética e estatística. Viçosa: UFV, Imprensa

  Acompanhamento da safra 2004/2005. Brasília: CONAB.

  REFERENCES COMPANHIA NACIONAL DE ABASTECIMENTO - CONAB.

  CONCLUSIONS For grain yield, the cultivar Helio 251 presents general indication, Milênio and CF 17 would be rec- ommended for favorable environments and ACA 884, ACA 885 and ACA 872 would be indicated for the un- favorable environments when sowed on February/ March. For oil yield, CF 13, Milênio, DK 4030, Helio 250 and ACA 872 present general indication; AG 966, GH 12, GV 26043, CF 17 and VDH 93 would be in- dicated for favorable environments, while VDH 488, Helio 251, ACA 884 and ACA 885 would be indicated for the unfavorable ones, when sowed at the same date.

  IDMG allowed to detecting cultivars for a specific en- vironment (Table 4). For grain yield, only the cultivar Helio 251 had general indication. Milênio and CF 17 would be indicated for favorable environments and ACA 884, ACA 885 and ACA 872 for the unfavorable ones. For oil yield, CF 13, Milênio, DK 4030, Helio 250 and ACA 872 had general indication; AG 966, GH 12, GV 26043, CF 17 and VDH 93 would be indicated for favorable environments, while VDH 488, Helio 251, ACA 884 and ACA 885 for the unfavorable conditions. The IDMG analysis was not performed in 2002, be- cause in those experiments the number of favorable environments was less than four. Some cultivars that did not present a superior average in comparison with the controls had good performance in specific envi- ronments. For instance, cultivar ACA 885 was indi- cated for unfavorable environments for grain and oil yields (Table 4), although its general average was smaller than one of the controls.

  Received December 19, 2006 Accepted September 03, 2007

Novo documento

Tags

Documento similar

VOLATILIZAÇÃO DE AMÔNIA A PARTIR DE URÉIA TRATADA COM INIBIDOR DE UREASE APLICADA SOBRE PALHA DE CANA-DE-AÇÚCAR
0
0
5
REDUZIDA FORMAÇÃO DE MICORRÍZAS ARBUSCULARES EM TOMATEIROS MUTANTES EM ETILENO
0
0
9
PERDAS DE NITROGÊNIO POR Brachiaria decumbens APÓS A APLICAÇÃO DE GLIFOSATO OU GLUFOSINATO DE AMÔNIO
0
0
6
VARIABILIDADE ESPACIAL DE PROPRIEDADES HÍDRICAS DO SOLO DE UMA ENCOSTA DO “LOESS PLATEAU” DA CHINA
0
0
9
VARIABILIDADE TEMPORAL E ESPACIAL DA UMIDADE DO SOLO NA CAMADA SUPERFICIAL DE UMA ENCOSTA DO “LOESS PLATEAU” NA CHINA
0
0
13
RESPOSTA DE ISOENZIMAS ANTIOXIDANTES AO ESTRESSE INDUZIDO POR NÍQUEL EM CULTURA DE CÉLULAS EM SUSPENSÃO DE FUMO
0
0
5
IMPUTAÇÃO MÚLTIPLA LIVRE DE DISTRIBUIÇÃO EM MATRIZ DE INTERAÇÃO POR MEIO DE DECOMPOSIÇÃO POR VALOR SINGULAR
0
0
6
MUDANÇAS NA MATÉRIA ORGÂNICA EDAFICA SOB DIFERENTES MANEJOS DE SOLO NA PROVÍNCIA DE MISIONES (ARGENTINA)
0
0
8
CINZAS DE CAMA SOBREPOSTA DE SUÍNOS COMO ADIÇÃO MINERAL EM ARGAMASSAS DE CIMENTO
0
0
7
ATRIBUTOS DO SOLO E QUALIDADE DA MADEIRA PARA PRODUÇÃO DE CELULOSE EM PLANTAÇÕES CLONAIS DE Eucalyptus grandis
0
0
8
EFEITO DO SISTEMA DE IRRIGAÇÃO POR MICROASPERSÃO EM JUVENIS INFECTANTES DE Heterorhabditis baujardi LPP7 (NEMATODA: HETERORHABDITIDAE)
0
0
5
ANÁLISE DE RUÍDO PARA A AVALIAÇÃO DO CONFORTO TÉRMICO DE PINTINHOS
0
0
6
UNIFORMIDADE DE SEMEADURAS PARA SEMEADEIRAS DE PRECISÃO A VÁCUO
0
0
5
PRODUÇÃO DE FRANGOS DE CORTE E SUÍNOS: CENÁRIO DA LEGISLAÇÃO SOBRE BEM-ESTAR ANIMAL
0
0
8
RASTREABILIDADE DE PÊSSEGOS PRODUZIDOS NO SISTEMA DE PRODUÇÃO INTEGRADA NO SUL DO BRASIL
0
0
6
Show more