رسالة السيد السيد الشاوى

Tanta University Faculty of Agriculture Department of Agronomy
Assessment of Water Stress Tolerance in Selected Barley Genotypes

BY
El-Sayed El-Sayed Abd-Allah EL-Shawy

B.Sc. Agric. (Agronomy) Kafr El-Sheikh, Tanta University (2003) M.Sc. Agric. (Agronomy), Fac. Agric., Kafr El-Sheikh University (2009)
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor Philosophy
IN
Agriculture sciences (Agronomy)

Department 0f Agronomy Faculty of Agriculture Tanta University
1434 A.H 2013 A.D
Tanta University Faculty of Agriculture Department of Agronomy

BY
El-Sayed El-Sayed Abd-Allah EL-Shawy

B.Sc. Agric. (Agronomy) Kafr El-Sheikh, Tanta University (2003) M.Sc. Agric. (Agronomy), Fac. Agric., Kafr El-Sheikh University (2009)
Thesis Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Of Doctor Philosophy IN Agriculture sciences (Agronomy)
SUPERVISING COMMITTEE
Prof. Dr. El- Sayed Hamid El-Seidy Prof. and Head of Agronomy Dept., Fac., of Agric., Tanta University Prof. Dr. Khairy Abdel-Aziz Amer Head of Research and Chief Researcher of Barley Research Dept ,. Field Crops Research Institute, ARC.
Dr. Amgad Abd El-Ghaffar El-Gammaal

Lecturer of Agronomy Dept. Fac. of Agric., Tanta University 1434 A.H 2013 A.D
APPROVAL SHEET
Title of Thesis:

Submitted to: Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt.
BY: El-Sayed El-Sayed Abd-Allah EL-Shawy

B.Sc. Agric. (Agronomy) Kafr El-Sheikh, Tanta University (2003) M.Sc. Agric. (Agronomy), Fac. Agric., Kafrelsheikh University (2009)
For: the Degree of Ph.D. in (Agronomy)
The dissertation work has been assessed and approved by:

Prof. Dr. Ahmed Abo El-Naga Kandil .............................................................
Prof. of Crop Science, Agronomy Dept., Fac. of Agric., Mansoura Univ.
Prof. Dr. Ramdan Aly El-Refaey ......

Prof. of Crop Science, Agronomy Dept., Fac. of Agric., Tanta University.
Prof. Dr. El-Sayed Hamid El-Seidy .....

Head of Agronomy Dept. and Prof. of Crop Science, Fac. of Agric., Tanta University.
Prof. Dr. Khairy Abdel-Aziz Amer ....

Head of Research and Chief Researcher of Barley Research Dept., Field Crops Research Institute, ARC. Department of Agronomy Faculty of Agriculture, Tanta University. Date: / /2012
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, all thanks are to God for his gifts. Sincere appreciation and deep gratitude are due to my supervisor Prof, Dr. El-Sayed H. El-Seidy, Professor and head of Agronomy Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Tanta University, for his supervision, encouragement, scientific advice and my deepest thanks are also for his sincere cooperation in reading and correcting this manuscript ,besides his helpful discussion. Sincere appreciation and deep gratitude are due to Prof, Dr. . Khairy AbdelAziz Amer team leader of Sakha barley Research Program. Field Crops Res. Institute, ARC, Egypt. For his sincere help in providing of the research materials, scientific advices and, criticism throughout the experimentation. Sincere thanks are due to,Dr Amgad Abd El-Ghaffar El-Gammaal Lecturer of Agronomy Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Tanta University, for his scientific advices , his great help in correct this manuscript, guidance and fruitful supervision. Special thanks and deep gratitude to Dr. Alaa Ali Attia Eid, Researcher in barley department. Sakha Agriculture Research station. Agric. Res. Center. For his scientific advices, encouragement throughout this study the hard work and long hours that were devoted to prepare the manuscript. Great appreciation and respect to the staff member of the Agronomy Dept., Faculty of Agriculture, Tanta University for the academic part study. Thanks to all staff members of Barley Res. Dept., especially at Sakha for their help and providing facilities. Finally, I am deeply grateful to my family; Father (R.I.P.), Mother, Brothers, Sister, my Wife and Friends for their continuous inspiration, encouragement and patience throughout this work.
ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT
To evaluate some barley (Hordeum Vulgare L.) varieties and sixteen breeding lines for high yield potential and stable performance under two irrigation treatments (non-stressed and stressed), dry matter accumulation, leaf area index, crop growth rate, net assimilation rate, relative growth rate, relative water content, total chlorophyll content, days to maturity, plant height, spike length, number of spike/m2, water use efficiency and grain indices such as 1000grain weight, number of grains per spike, grain yield, biological yield in addition to seven stress tolerance indices were evaluated (STI, YI, YSI, MP, GMP, Yr, DSI)* during two successive seasons 2009/10 and 2010/11 at Sakha Res. Station. All the studied characteristics were significantly affected by water stress at both growing seasons, except for water use efficiency and total chlorophyll content. High positive correlation was found between each of the biological yield and grain and all of the attributes of the number of days to maturity, plant height, spike length, number of spikes/m2, number of grains/spike, 1000-grain weight. There were significant differences for all the seven indices among the genotypes. Grain yield under normal condition (GYp) was highly significantly correlated with grain yields under stressed (GYs) conditions. Correlation analysis between drought tolerance indices and yield components showed that grain yield under irrigated condition was positively correlated with MP, STI, GMP and YI. While, yield under stress condition (GYs) was positively correlated with YSI, MP, STI, GMP and YI and negatively correlated with Yr and DSI. Genotypes were significantly different for their yield under stress and non-stress conditions . L4 and L8 had the heaviest grains and the highest values of WUE under both conditions compared with Giza 126 (check variety), as well as possessed high values of MP, YSI, STI, GMP and YI and DSI less than one, and low values of Yr, revealing that these genotypes were more tolerant to water stress and more desirable genotypes for both stress and non-stress conditions.
*Abbreviations: STI stress tolerance index, YI yield index, YSI yield stability index, MP mean productivity, GMP geometrical mean productivity, Yr yield reduction ratio, DSI stress susceptibility index. GYs grain yield under drought condition, GYp grain yield under normal condition, WUE water use efficiency.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction 2. Review of literature. 2.1. Effect of water stress on growth analysis. 2.2 Effect of water stress conditions on barley agronomic traits. 2.3. Drought susceptibility indices. 2.4. Interaction effect. 3. Materials and methods. 3.1. Experimental design. 3.2. Data recorded. 3.2.1. Earliness characters. 3.2.2. Growth analysis. 3.2.3. Physiological traits. 3.2.4. Yield and its components. 3.2.5. Drought tolerance indices. 3.2.6. Correlation coefficients. 3.2.7. Reduction ratio 4. Results and discussion. 4.1. Growth analysis and attributes. 4.1.1. Dry matter accumulation (DM). 4.1.2. Leaf area index (LAI). 4.1.3. Crop growth rate (CGR). 4.1.4. Net assimilation rate (NAR). 4.1.5. Relative growth rate (RGR). 4.1.6. Relative water content (RWC). 4.1.7. Total chlorophyll content. 4.1.8. Days to heading. 4.1.9. Days to maturity. 4.1.10. Plant height. 4.2. yield and yield components: 4.2.1. Spike length. 4.2.2. Spikes number/m2. 4.2.3. Grains number per spike. 4.2.4. 1000-grain weight. 4.2.5. Biological yield. 4.2.6. Grain yield. 4.2.7. Water use efficiency (WUE). 4.3. Simple correlation coefficients between grain yield and the other studied characteristics overall the two growing seasons. 1 3 3 5 13 17 22 23 24 24 24 26 26 27 28 28 29 29 29 33 36 39 42 44 47 51 52 55 57 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 72
4.4. Tolerance indices of 20 barley genotypes under stress and nonstress conditions. 5- Summary. 6- References. 7- Arabic summary.
73 77 85 .
LIST OF TABLES
Table (1): Soil analysis of the experimental field at Sakha Agricultural Research Station at 2009/10 and 2010/11 seasons. Table (2): Amount of supplied water in m3fed.-1 at different barley critical growth stages, rainfall amount and total water supplied at 2009/10 and 2010/11 Seasons. Table (3): Maximum, minimum temperature, average relative humidity and rainfall during the growing seasons of barley crop at Sakha Agricultural Research Station, (ARC), Egypt. Table (4): Name, pedigree and origin of the twenty barley genotypes. Table (5): Means of dry matter accumulation (DM) as affected by irrigation treatments and barley genotypes as well as its interaction at three growth stages in both growing seasons. Table (6): Means of leaf area index (LAI) as affected by irrigation treatments and barley genotypes as well as its interaction at three growth stages in both growing seasons. Table (7): Means of crop growth rate (CGR) as affected by irrigation treatments and barley genotypes as well as its interaction at three growth stages in both growing seasons. Table (8): Means of net assimilation rate (NAR) as affected by irrigation treatments and barley genotypes as well as its interaction at three growth stages in both growing seasons. Table (9): Means of net assimilation rate (NAR) as affected by irrigation treatments and barley genotypes as well as its interaction at three growth stages in both growing seasons. Table (10): Means of relative water content (RWC) as affected by irrigation treatments and barley genotypes as well as its interaction at three growth stages in both growing seasons. Table (11): Means of total chlorophyll content as affected by irrigation treatments and barley genotypes as well as its interaction at three growth stages in both growing seasons. Table (12): Means of heading date as affected by irrigation treatments and barley genotypes as well as its interaction at three growth stages in both growing seasons. Table (13): Means of maturity date as affected by irrigation treatments and barley genotypes as well as its interaction at three growth stages in both growing seasons. 22 22
23 24 30
33
36
39
42
45
48
51
53
Table (14): Means of plant height as affected by irrigation treatments and barley genotypes as well as its interaction at three growth stages in both growing seasons. Table (15): Means of spike length as affected by irrigation treatments and barley genotypes as well as its interaction at three growth stages in both growing seasons. Table (16): Means of spikes number/m2 as affected by irrigation treatments and barley genotypes as well as its interaction at three growth stages in both growing seasons. Table (17): Means of grains number per spike as affected by irrigation treatments and barley genotypes as well as its interaction at three growth stages in both growing seasons. Table (18): Means of 1000-grain weight as affected by irrigation treatments and barley genotypes as well as its interaction at three growth stages in both growing seasons. Table (19): Means of biological yield as affected by irrigation treatments and barley genotypes as well as its interaction at three growth stages in both growing seasons. Table (20): Means of grain yield as affected by irrigation treatments and barley genotypes as well as its interaction at three growth stages in both growing seasons. Table (21): Grain yield status of barley genotypes in drought trail compared to local variety (Giza126) in 2009-2010 and 20102011 seasons. Table (22): Means of water use efficiency as affected by irrigation treatments and barley genotypes as well as its interaction at three growth stages in both growing seasons. Table (23): Simple correlation coefficients between grain yield and the other studied characteristics overall the two growing seasons. Table (24): Tolerance indices of 20 barley genotypes under stress and non-stress conditions. Table (25): Simple correlation coefficients (r) between grain yield under normal Yp, grain yield under stressed Ys conditions and tolerance indices overall the two growing seasons.
55
58
59
62
64
66
67
70
71
72 74
75
INTRODUCTION
1. INTRODUCTION
Barley (Hordeum vulgare, L.) is the main crop grown in a large scale in rainfed areas of Egypt. It was adapted long time ago to survive and grow satisfactorily under adverse conditions, i.e. drought, low soil fertility, saline soil, high or low temperature and moisture stress. It is considered one of the most suitable crops that can be grown over a wide range of soil variability and under many adverse condition crops. The major use of barley in Egypt as well as in the most developing countries for animal and poultry feeding. There is renewed interest in using the crop as human food in (North Africa) and in malting industry, the increased consumption of animal product especially for sheep and goats has resulted in a sharp demand on barley. Because of the increasing interest in using barley for human consumption, hull-less barley has been considered as an ideal type to achieve this goal. Barley is the dominant cereal crop grown in North West Coast and North Sinai in Egypt. It is grown also in the new reclaimed lands. Most of these lands are suffering from water shortage and low soil fertility. Development of barley cultivars having the ability to grow well under drought and the other environmental stresses is needed. An additional avenue is cultivation of the early maturing barley cultivars before cotton, to support the wheat production in Egypt for bread making to overcome the gab between wheat consumption and wheat production. Because barley production areas are located in different environments, developing stable barley cultivars is one of the main objectives for barley breeders. In this respect, Katta et al. (2009) and Amer (2010) reported the possibility of developing some barley genotypes combining high yield potential under a wide range of environmental stresses. The rainfed areas in Egypt cover about 120,000 hectares in the North West Coast and about 40.000 hectares in North-Sinai (Noaman, 2008). Farming systems of these populations are livestock mainly sheep with barley as their
-1-
INTRODUCTION main annual crop for fodder and bread-making. Anyway, improving barley production depends on developing new genotypes having high yield potentiality under stress conditions, expanding barley production areas, and identifying the proper crop management. Drought is a major abiotic stress that severely affects barley production worldwide. Therefore, research on crop management practices that enhances drought tolerance and plant growth when water supply is limited has become increasingly essential. Barley germplasm is a treasure trove of useful genes and provides rich sources of genetic variation for crop improvement. The ability of a cultivar to produce high and satisfactory yield over a wide range of stress and non-stress environments is very important. Finlay (1968) believed that stability over environments and yield potential are more or less independent of each other. Blum (1979) suggested that one method of breeding for increased performance under water stressed conditions might be to breed for superior yield under optimum conditions on the assumption that the best lines would also perform well under sub optimum conditions. Sojka et al. (1981) pointed out that a high yield base line that allows a cultivar to do well over a range of environments does not imply drought resistance. They defined drought tolerance as the ability to minimize yield loss in the absence of soil water availability. The ideal situation would be to have a highly stable genotype with high yield potential (Finlay & Wilkinson, 1963; Smith, 1982). The combination of high yield stability and high relative yield under drought has been proposed as useful selection criterion for characterizing genotypic performance under varying degree of water stress (Pinter et al., 1990). Ahmad et al. (1999) found combination of drought susceptibility index (measure of yield stability) vs. relative yield useful in identifying genotypes with yield potential and relatively stable yield performance under different moisture environments. The objective of the present study, therefore, was to screen barley genotypes with high yield potential under water stress conditions.
-2-
Review of Literature
2-REVIEW OF LITERATURE Review of literature in the present study is classified according to the topics of the study into the following main headings: 2.1. Effect of water stress on growth analysis:
Spitters and Kramer (1985) discussed changes in relative growth rate (RGR) with plant ontogeny in spring wheat genotypes and found that the genetic variance of RGR decreased much less with time than RGR itself. They added that late flowering cultivars had higher RGR. Rama Rao (1986) estimated relative growth rate (RGR) and net assimilation rat (NAR) between 30-45 days, 45-75 days and 75105 days in wheat. He stated that RGR is one of important parameter to assess the performance of crop growth particularly a early stages. Menshawy (2000) reported that the relative growth rate (RGR) and net assimilation rat (NAR) declined with time in all genotypes of wheat under studies. Tarrad et al. (2002) showed that water stress led to decrease most of barley morphological, physiological and studied characters. Flag leaf area was decreased in the stress treatment by 45.4% and its dray weight by 32.2% compared to control. Leaf relative water content (RWC) was decreased by water deficit depending on stress period and plant growth stage. Alam et al. (2003) investigated the effect of irrigation on growth of wheat (cv. Kanchan). They were observed that all studied parameters differed significantly (p < 0.05) due to both treatment (no irrigation and irrigated). All growing parameters i.e. leaf area index 3
(1.37 and 3.73 at 60 and 75 days, respectively), crop growth rate (282.10 and 158.99 mg day-1 plant-1 at 60-75 and 75-90 days, respectively) ant relative growth rate (0.108 and 0.021 mg mg -1 at 6075 and 75-90 days, respectively) were exhibited the value when irrigated thrice and corresponding the lowest obtained from the control treatment (no irrigation). Shahen (2005) investigated the response of four barley genotypes (Giza123, Giza126, Giza2000 and a breeding line (MAF102/Volla//WW319xGiza119)) to moisture stress at the different growth stages (one irrigation was applied at sowing; two irrigation were applied, the first at sowing and the other after 45 days from sowing and three irrigations were applied at sowing, after 45 and 75 days from sowing). The increases in growth analysis attributes (LA, RGR, CGR and NAR) were higher than can for by adding the increase in growth due to moisture. Rana et al. (2006). Reported that the photosynthesis per unit leaf area was not initially reduced by salinity, particularly in the moretolerant Line 455, as the chlorophyll per unit area was higher in saline than non-saline conditions (the leaves were narrower, the cells were smaller, and so the chloroplast density was greater).That the hormonal control of cell division and differentiation is affected by salinity is clear from the appearance of leaves: leaves are smaller in area but greener, i.e. the density of chloroplasts has increased, indicating that cell size and shape has changed. Leaves have a higher specific leaf weight (higher dry weight: area ratio) which means that their transpiration efficiency is higher (more carbon fixed per water lost), a feature that is common in plants adapted to both dry or saline soil. 4
Jazy et al. (2007) evaluated the effect of irrigation regimes on growth indices of three bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes. Irrigation treatments (irrigation after 70 (I1), 90 (I2) and 110 (I3) mm and three wheat genotypes (Mahdavy, Ghods and Roshan-Backcross). The I1 and I2 did not differ significantly for all growth indices and total dry matter. Delay in irrigation from I2 to I3 significantly reduced growth indices and total dry matter. Trend of changes in Leaf Area Index (LAI), Total Dry Matter (TDM), Net Assimilation Rate (NAR) and Crop Growth Rate (CGR) were similar in the I1 and I2 in all samplings, delay in irrigation from I2 to I3 reduced all growth indices. Mollah and Paul (2008) studied the growth attributes of four varieties of barley (BARI Barley-1, BARI Barley-2, BHL-3, BL-1) in relation to different soil moisture regimes. Three levels of irrigation treatments were adopted, viz., rain fed (I0), 20 mm irrigation (I1) and 40 mm irrigation (I2) at every 30 days interval for three times during the growing period. For growth analysis, plants were harvested at 10 days intervals and the first harvest was taken at 20 days. Total dry matter (TDM), leaf area index (LAI) and crop growth rate (CGR) were increased with increasing number of irrigations. Net assimilation rate (NAR) fluctuated, but in most of the cases, it was highest and lowest in the I2 treatment at the first and last harvest. With few exceptions, I0 treatment had the highest and lowest leaf area ratio (LAR) at the first and last harvest, respectively.
2.2. Effect of water stress conditions on barley agronomic traits:

Michael (1978).Water use efficiency (WUE) is often considered an important parameter of yield under stress and even as a 5
component of crop drought tolerance. As well as water utilization efficiency is a useful measure in evaluating irrigation practice; particularly under deficit irrigation technique, where irrigation water is searched. Such measure illustrated the crop performance as irrigation water was applied water that require for crop yield potentiality. Ceccarelli (1987) reported that, water deficit during the early stage of plant development induces a reduction in spikelets primordia, while water deficit late in the plant development increases death of the flower and the entire spikelet. The number of grains per spike (fertility) depends on the water availability during the early vegetative phase and during the shooting stage. If water deficit occurs after the flowering stage, it induces a decrease of grain weight and thus its yield Dutt (1988) found that reduction in grain yield of four barley cultivars under stress conditions was due to the decrease in number of the filled grain/plant and 1000-grain weight. EL-Hawary (2000) studied the effects of three water depletion of available soil water on yield and yield components in some wheat varieties. He found that the average values of number of spikes/m2, number of grains/spike and grain yield/fed were significantly decreased with increasing depletion of available soil water. Mohammed (2001) investigated the genetic behavior of 45 wheat genotypes under normal and water stress conditions, he found that the mean performance of both parental wheat genotypes and cross 6
combinations were lower under stress condition as compared with normal conditions. Abd El-Wahab (2002) studied the effect of soil moisture stress on yield and yield components in bread wheat, he found that grain yield produced under different depletion levels was decreased with increasing the soil water stress, while the mean of grain yield had different values for the tested varieties. Irrigation treatments significantly resulted larger number of spikes per m2 and grains per spike, while number of spikes per m2 and grains per spike were highly significantly affected by the studied wheat varieties. Increasing soil moisture depletion tended to reduce kernel weight, which was significantly influenced by the wheat varieties. Nabipour et al. (2002) evaluated eight wheat cultivars for drought resistance. They found that, 1000-kernel weight, number of kernels/spike, grain yield and plant height were decreased with drought. Number of spikes per plant was the least affected, while number of kernels per spike was the most affected under water stress condition. Moursi (2003) conducted two field experiments, using six bread wheat genotypes to study grain yield and its attributes and drought susceptibility index. Grain yield and its attributes decreased as affected by increasing soil moisture stress. Bayoumi (2004) studied plant height (PH), grain yield and its components and drought susceptibility index under water stress and normal irrigation treatments. The mean squares due to genotypes, parents and crosses were highly significant for all traits, indicating the 7
presence of wide diversity among the parental materials and the 15 F1s crosses under normal and water stress conditions. Mohamed (2004) employed six parents of bread wheat and their F1s under water stress and normal conditions. The most genotypes under water stress condition were decreased plant height and grain yield and its attributes than the normal one. Most of the studied genotypes had decreased the number of spikes/plant and kernels/spike, 100-kernel weight and grain yield/plant under stress than non-stress condition. Farhat (2005) studied days to heading, days to maturity, plant height and grain yield and its components in six bread wheat parents in diallel crosses. He found that water stress treatment decreased the means of all studied characters for all genotypes. Mahmoud et al. (2006) indicated that plant height, number of spikes plant, 100 kernel weight, and grain yield per plant for four F 1 crosses derived from four barley lines as testers and six barley genotypes (lines), under two locations (normal and stress conditions) were decreased significantly under stress conditions. Bagheri and Abad (2007) found that number of spikes and grains per plot were decreased significantly under stress, grain weight was less sensitive to drought stress. The biological and grain yields were decreased under drought stress. The biological yield differences were related to low plant height, leaf area and tiller number; the grain yield differences were caused by reduction in ears per plant and grains per ear.
Kamel et al. (2008) determined the effect of full and deficit irrigation on soil salinity, yield and water use efficiency of barley (Hordeum vulgar,L.).They found that, no significant difference were observed in grain yield, dray matter and 1000 kernels weight, kernels/spike and spike per m2 form the comparison between full irrigation and deficit irrigation treatments. Klar and Santos (2008) studied some physiological parameters on six barley cultivars (Borema, Lagoa, BRS-180, BRS195, EMB-128 and BRS-225), with application of water deficit cycles on different plant phenological phases. Leaf diffusive resistance to water vapour (Rs), relative water content (RWC) and leaf water potential (LWP) of leaves were used for evaluating drought tolerance. EMB-128 showed better adaptation to stress based only on the relation LWP x RWC. Santos et al. (2008) evaluated drought tolerance in 6 barley cultivars (Borema, Lagoa, BRS-180, BRS-195, EMB-128 and BRS225). Plants irrigated until harvesting, water stress starting from 45 days after sowing (DAS) and water stress starting from 65 DAS. All the cultivars exhibited adaptation to water stress. However, EMB-128 and BRS-180 had the greatest and lowest potential for drought tolerance, respectively. Sorin et al. (2008) evaluated the drought tolerance of 23 Romanian and foreign winter barley cultivars using different screening techniques: excised leaf water loss, leaf relative water content, and pollen deformation rate after osmotic stress using polyethylene glycol. Considering the appreciations of the four used techniques, the highest drought tolerance was presented by cultivars: 9
Salemer, Secura, Compact, Adi, Dana. An pronounced sensibility for hydric stress was observed in cultivars: Precoce, Orizont, Andrei, Pfyner, Manitou. Szira et al. (2008) discussed various drought stress experiments (hydroponics and in soil) in which the plant tolerance was studied at different developmental stages. Tests were performed in the germination, seedling and adult plant stages on the parental lines of ve well-known barley-mapping populations. The results suggest that drought tolerance is a stage-specic trait and changes during the life cycle. The effect of drought stress depended not only on the duration and intensity of water deciency but also on the developmental phase in which it began. To induce the same type of stress and to obtain comparable tolerance information from the replications, it is recommended that drought stress should be induced at the same growth stage. Correlations between the traits, commonly associated with improved drought resistance (high relative water content under stress, proline accumulation and osmoregulation) with stress tolerance indexes, are also presented, while the advantages and disadvantages of the most frequently used screening methods are discussed. Ali (2009) The assessed included the combination comprising of 2 barely genotypes ( Jesto and Sahrawe) and applied 50 mm. water irrigation in each of the five irrigation schedules ( 0, 50,100,150 and 200 mm ) of cumulative pan evaporation, (CPE). The aim of the study was to assess the potentiality of two barely genotypes under water stress condition. The highest value of grain yield, 1000 grain weight and water use efficiency of both cultivars in both seasons, as compared with the other levels of water irrigation. 20 to 40 % of water 10
irrigation could be conserved for growing barley under arid environment of Saudi Arabia. Samarah el al. (2009) investigated the growth performance and grain yield of four barley cultivars under late-terminal drought stress under both glasshouse and eld conditions. At grain lling, four barley cultivars (Rum, ACSAD176, Athroh and Yarmouk) were exposed to three watering treatments: (1) well-watered [soil maintained at 75 % eld capacity (FC)], (2) mild drought stress at 50 % FC, (3) severe drought stress at 25 % FC in the glasshouse experiment and (1) well-watered (irrigated once a week), (2) mild drought (irrigated once every 2 weeks), (3) severe drought (nonirrigated; rainfed) in the eld. As drought stress severity increased, gross photosynthetic rate, water potential, plant height, grain lling duration, spike number per plant, grain number per spike, 1000-grain weight, straw yield, grain yield and harvest index decreased. Refay (2010) evaluated the response of four barley genotypes viz., (Jesto, Giza121, Giza123 and local variety) to water irrigation schedules viz., (70, 100, and 180 mm of cumulative pan evaporation, (CPE), plus traditional water irrigation method used by many farmers (weekly irrigation). Results obtained showed that no particular trend was observed in the most studied growth parameters, more or less values were accompanying with decreasing in water irrigation. However, among the selected four barley genotypes, Giza121 ranked all other tested genotypes in most of growth, yield and yield component characters. No significant differences due to interactions effect were found in most of studied parameters. Noticeable, rapid decrease pronounced true in yield and yield component characters as well as yield parameters associated with low water irrigation. 11
Vaezi el al. (2010) tested in a two-year experiment, 11 barley genotypes from ICARDA and one landrace from Iran under optimum and drought stress conditions. Phenological and physiological traits such as relative water content (RWC), plant height (PLH), days to heading (DHE), days to maturity (DMA) and seed indexes such as 1000-grain weight (TGW), number of grain per spike (G/S) and grain yield (GY) were evaluated. Variations were observed in DHE, DMA, G/S, TGW, PLH and RWC. DHE and DMA were the phenological traits that most influenced yield during water stress conditions. Negative correlation was observed under water stress between yield, DHE, and DMA under drought stress. The average reduction in yield caused by drought stress was 28.05%. Under drought stress condition, TGW, G/S and RWC correlated positively with yield, while under both stress conditions, the correlation of yield and PLH was lower than other correlations. Mollah and Paul (2011) studied the influence of soil moisture and variety on yield and yield components of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Three levels of irrigation treatments (0, 20 and 40 mm water as I0, I1 and I2 respectively) were adopted at every 30 days interval for three times during the growing period. Plant height, tiller number, spikelet number, grain number, 100-grain weight and grain yield were observed highest in the I2 (40 mm irrigation water). But the highest water use efficiency (WUE) was observed in the I0 (no irrigation). Lower WUE with higher soil moisture status was due to proportionately more increase in evapotranspiration than the increase in seed yield. Soliman et al. (2011) determined the response of the yield of three barley hulled cultivars (Giza 123, Giza 124 and Giza 125) to two 12
irrigation amounts (high amount equivalent to 2250 m 3 /fed and low amount equivalent to 1500 m 3 /fed) and their water use efficiency. The results indicated that the three studied barley cultivars were significantly different. Giza 123 was superior in plant height, number of spikes/m2 and spike length. However, Giza 124 had the highest value for 1000-grain weight, grain and biological yield. The low irrigation amount gave the highest yield in the three cultivars. But, the response of Giza 124 to irrigation treatments was the best, where its yield was the highest and water use efficiency was the highest. All yield attributes were highly and significantly correlated to barley yield. Obtained results stressed on the importance of applying less irrigation water to the growing crops to maintain the sustainable use of water and soil resources. Budakli and Celik (2012) determined the correlations between grain yield and yield components and to measure the direct and indirect effects of yield components on grain yield in barley by using correlation coefficient and path analysis methods, respectively. Agronomic traits such as grain yield, plant height, spike length, kernel number per spike, kernel weight per spike, spike number per m2 , harvest index and 1000-kernel weight were determined. The data from two years were combined. Correlation analyses indicated that the grain yield was positively and significantly associated with all the yield components except 1000-kernel weight. The highest correlation coefficients were found between grain yield and kernel number per spike (r = +0.406), and between grain yield and harvest index (r = +0.474).
2.3. Drought susceptibility indices:

Fisher and Maurer (1978) used cultivars representing 13
several species [Triticum aestivum, Triticum durum, triticale and barley, Hordium vulgare]. They found that the SI value varied according to the crop species and within bread wheat cultivars. The average SI of 8 tall bread wheat cultivars was 0.83 as compared to 1.013 to short cultivars, whereas the SI value was 1.055 for durum wheat varieties, 1.21 for triticale and 0.95 for barley. This means that the tall bread wheat cvs were more drought resistance than short bread cvs, durum cvs and triticale which was more susceptibility than others. Farhat (2005) found in six wheat genotypes and their hybrids at normal and water stress conditions that, Sakha 93 had the lowest SI followed by Giza 164 followed by Sakha 8, while Chinese spring had the highest SI followed by Sakha 61 followed by Sakha 94. Therefore, parents with relatively low SI values seem to be more tolerant to water stress than that of SI > 1. SI for hybrids ranged from 0.13 for Sakha 93 x Sakha 94 to 3.8 for Sakha 94 x Chinese spring. Nazari and Pakniyat (2010) tested sixteen barley genotypes under two different irrigation regimes (non-stressed and stressed). Plants were subjected to moisture stress at flowering period till maturity. Six drought tolerance indices, stress tolerance index (STI), stress tolerance (TOL), stress susceptibility index (SSI), yield reduction ratio (Yr), mean productivity (MP) and geometric mean productivity (GMP) were used. The indices were adjusted based on grain yield under stress (Ys) and non-stress (Yp) conditions. There were significant differences for all criteria among the genotypes. The significant and positive correlations of Yp with (MP, GMP and STI) and Ys with (MP, GMP and STI), as well as, significant negative correlation of SSI and TOL under stress environment, revealed that the selection could be conducted for high values of MP, GMP and STI 14
under both conditions and low values of SSI and TOL under stress condition. The correlation coefficient indicated that STI, MP and GMP are the best criteria for selection of high yielding genotypes under both stress and non-stress conditions. Naghaii and Asgharipour (2011) studied the effects of late season drought stress on agronomic characteristics of 20 barley genotypes. Results showed that genotypes were caused significant differences in grain yield, biological yield, one-thousand grains weight, ear number/m2, grain number/spike, spike length, grain filling period, harvest index and plant height at both stressful and normal environment. As it was expected, drought caused a significant reduction in all the agronomic traits. The correlation between traits showed the most positive significant correlation in stress and normal conditions was observed between grain yield versus one-thousand grain weight, and between grain yield versus harvest index, respectively. Also, results showed that the three indicators of drought tolerance STI, GMP, MP had most significant positive correlation with yield in both conditions. Evaluation indicators of drought tolerance of STI, GMP and MP showed that, genotype No. 20 (M-8214) can be represented as superior genotype under late season drought and normal conditions. Abdi et al. (2012) studied the effect of drought stress on quantitative attributes of 40 figures and lines, bread wheat was tested in two environments, normal and drought stress. Results of the variance analysis showed that for both normal and drought stress conditions, differences among the genotypes, in terms of most characteristics were significant. Correlations between different drought resistance indexes and grain yield from both normal and stress 15
conditions were positive and significant. However, correlations of SSI and TOL indexes with yield in normal condition were positive and significant but results were negative and significant with yield in stress condition. Calculations done with the various drought resistance indexes indicated that 3 indexes; those of Mean Productivity (MP), Geometrical Mean (GMP) and Stress Tolerance Index (STI) were the most important indexes for the identification of a genotypes resistance to drought. Khokhar el al. (2012) evaluated twelve barley genotypes based on different selection methods under drought and irrigated conditions. Drought stress reduced the yield of some genotypes while others were tolerant to drought, suggesting genetic variability in this material for drought tolerance. The results of a correlation matrix revealed highly significant associations between Grain Yield and Mean Productivity, Stress Tolerance Index, Geometric Mean Productivity and Yield Index under irrigated conditions while, the Mean Productivity, Yield Stability Index, Stress Tolerance Index, Geometric Mean Productivity and Yield Index had a high response under stressed condition. Based on a principal component analysis, Geometric Mean Productivity, Mean Productivity and Stress Tolerance Index were considered to be the best parameters for selection of drought-tolerant genotypes. Muhammad et al. (2012) evaluated twelve barley genotypes based on different selection methods under drought and irrigated conditions. Drought stress reduced the yield of some genotypes, while others were tolerant to drought, suggesting genetic variability in this material for drought tolerance. The results of a correlation matrix revealed highly significant associations between Grain Yield and 16
Mean Productivity, Stress Tolerance Index, Geometric Mean Productivity and Yield Index under irrigated conditions while, the Mean Productivity, Yield Stability Index, Stress Tolerance Index, Geometric Mean Productivity and Yield Index had a high response under stressed condition. Based on a principal component analysis, Geometric Mean Productivity, Mean Productivity and Stress Tolerance Index were considered to be the best parameters for selection of drought-tolerant genotypes. The 2-row barley genotypes B-07023 and B-07021 performed good in yield response under drought conditions and were also more stable under stress conditions. Furthermore, drought stress reduced the yield of some genotypes, while others were tolerant to drought, suggesting genetic variability in this material for drought tolerance.
2.4. Interaction effect:

Mugabe and Nyakatawa (2000) found that interaction effect between deficit irrigation and six wheat genotypes were highly significant for grain yield and insignificant for days to heading, days to maturity, number of ears/m2, plant height and 1000-kernel weight. Sadek (2000) observed that interaction between wheat cultivars and irrigation treatment had significant effect for number of spikes/m2 and grain yield. El-Ganbeehy (2001) showed that the interaction effect between irrigation treatment and wheat and barley cultivars had highly significant for number of kernels/spike and insignificant effect for grain yield, spikes/m2, plant height and days to heading. Mahgoub and Sayed (2001) observed that interaction effect between wheat cultivars and irrigation levels were significant for 17
number of kernels/spike, while it were insignificant for1000-kerenl weight and plant height. Tawfelis et al. (2001) in upper Egypt, stated that the interaction between water stress and wheat genotypes were significant for days to heading, days to maturity, plant height, number of spikes/m2, grain yield, straw yield, number of grains/spike, 1000-grain weight and harvest index. Abo-Warda (2002) indicated that interaction between wheat genotypes and irrigation treatments had significant effect on grain yield, number of spikes/m2, number of grains/spike and 1000-grain weight. El-Banna et al. (2002) indicated that interaction between wheat genotypes and irrigation treatments had insignificant effect on plant height and 1000-grain weight. In the first season, interaction effects for days to heading and number of spikes/m2 were insignificant. While, for flag leaf area, number of grains/spike and grain yield were significant. Hassaan (2003) observed significant differences for the interaction between bread wheat genotypes and drought stress for plant height, number of kernels/spike and grain yield. Hefnawy and Wahba (2003) indicated that, interaction between irrigation and wheat cultivars had significant effects on spikes/m2, 1000-kernel weight, number of kernels/spike, grain yield, straw yield and harvest index. Kheiralla et al. (2004) revealed that the interaction between water stress and wheat genotypes were highly significant effects on 1000-kernel weight and grain yield. 18
Moussa and Abdel-Maksoud (2004) found that, interaction effect between irrigation and wheat cultivars was insignificant for number of spikes/m2, number of grains/spike, 1000-grain weight, straw and grain yields. Abd El-Ati and Zaki (2006) found that, interaction between wheat cultivars and irrigation treatment had highly significant effects on days to heading, days to maturity, plant height, number of spikes/m2, number of kernels/spike, 1000-kernel weight and grain and straw yields. El-Afandy (2006) found that, interaction between wheat cultivars and irrigation treatment had highly significant effects on plant height, grain and straw yields and protein percentage. While, the interaction effect was insignificant for spikes/m2, number of kernels/spike and harvest index. Khalil et al. (2006) indicated that, interaction between cultivars and irrigation treatments had highly significant effects on plant height and grain yield, while it was insignificant for kernels/spike and 1000-kernel weight. Mamnouie el al. (2006) observed significant interaction between barley varieties and irrigation treatments only for number of spikes/m2 and grain yield. Meanwhile, the effects were insignificant for grain number per spike, 1000-grain weight, total chlorophyll content (SPAD values) and Proline content. Menshawy et al. (2006) found that, interaction between cultivars and number of irrigation had highly significant effect on number of days to heading and maturity, plant height, and grain and straw yields in one season and on 1000-kernel weight. Meanwhile, the effects were insignificant for number of spikes/m2. 19
Samarah el al. (2009) found that, irrigation treatments barley cultivars interaction effect was signicant for grain number per spike, 1000-grain weight, straw yield and grain yield. While, the interaction effect was insignificant for heading date, plant height and spike number per plant. Khayatnezhad el al. (2010) revealed that the interaction between water stress and wheat genotypes were highly significant effects on plant height and grain yield. Meanwhile, the effects were insignificant for of spikes number, spike length, 1000-grain weight and biological yield. Refay (2010) revealed that the interaction between water stress and barley varieties was clearly assigned only in 1000-grain weight and number of grains per spike in both seasons. While, it was insignificant for number of days to heading and maturity, plant height, spike length, number of spike/m2, grain yield, biology yield and water use efficiency. Mollah and Paul (2011) observed significant interaction of irrigation barley varieties only for WUE. Meanwhile, the effects were insignificant for Plant height, tiller number, extrusion length, spikelet number per plant, plant weight, grain number per plant, 100grain weight and grain yield. Zare el al. (2011) found that, stress barley genotypes interaction effect was only significant for seeds number per spike. While, the interaction effect was insignificant for plant height, spike length, number of spikes per plant, 1000-grain weight, biological yield and grain yield. Ali el al. (2012) revealed that, irrigation and cultivar interaction has significant influence on plant height. While, it was 20
insignificant for total number of tiller pet plant, ear length, peduncle length, RWC of leaf, the number of days from germination to stem elongation, from germination to anthesis stage, from germination to flowering stage and from germination to physiological ripening.
21
MATERIALS AND METHODS
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was carried out at Agronomy Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Tanta University. The field experiments were carried out in the Experimental Farm at Sakha Agricultural Research Station, Kafr ElSheikh Governorate, Egypt, during the two successive growing seasons of 2009/10 and 2010/11. The main objective of the present study, therefore, was to screen twenty barley genotypes with high yield potential under water stress conditions Soil samples were randomly taken from the experimental area at a depth of 0 to 30 cm from soil surface before barley sowing. The soil properties are shown in Table 1. Water application was mentiored via a water meter as shown in Table 2. Table (1): Soil analysis of the Experimental Field at Sakha Agricultural Research Station at 2009/10 and 2010/11 Seasons.
Determination 2009/2010 2010/2011 Sand % 13.74 15.53 Silt % 24.91 23.95 Clay % 61.35 60.52 Texture Clay Clay pH 7.9 8.2 E.C(ds/m) 2.1 2.9
Table (2): Amount of supplied water in m3fed.-1 at different barley critical growth stages, rainfall amount and total water supplied at 2009/10 and 2010/11 Seasons.
Growth Stages
Sowing 550 500 550 500 Tillering Booting 350 325 22 450 450 Water (m3)
1350 1275 550 500
Irrigation Treatment
Growth Season 2009/10
Irrigation
Rainfall
28 120 28 120 117.6 504 117.6 504
Total
1667.6 1779 817.6 1004
3 -1 mm m3 fed.-1 (m fed. )
Irrigated
2010/11 2009/10
Stressed
2010/11
MATERIALS AND METHODS In the first season, the maximum temperature was high, but the relative humidity and the total rainfall were low compared with the second season (Table 3). Table (3): Maximum, minimum temperature, average relative humidity and rainfall during the growing seasons of barley crop at Sakha Agricultural Research Station, (ARC), Egypt.
Temperature o(C) Month 2009/10 Max. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. 22.72 21.77 23.38 23.92 28.77 Min. 8.92 7.77 9.19 9.18 11.76 2010/11 Max. 16.82 14.73 15.81 18.24 23.40 Min. 14.75 12.49 13.32 15.09 18.08 Relative humidity (%) 2009/10 66.44 71.48 65.11 62.09 68.62 2010/11 80.94 87.74 79.00 77.97 66.77 Rainfall (mm) 2009/10 2010/11 5.80 0.00 22.20 0.00 0.00 44.95 28.21 22.40 13.95 10.50
Twenty barley genotypes (2 lines from ICARDA, 14 breeding lines and three local varieties i.e. Giza 121, Giza 126 and Giza 132 and Beacher introduced from USA, named Giza 118) were chosen for the study based on their reputed differences in yield performance under normal and stress conditions, their names, pedigrees and origin are presented in Table 4. 3.1. Experimental design: Giza 126 was the most drought tolerant variety. So, this variety was used as check compared with the other genotypes. Grains were hand drilled at the recommended sowing rate of barley in the irrigated land in Egypt (50 kg fed.-1). Each genotype was sown in six rows of 3.5 m, spaced with 20 cm among rows. These experiments were laid out in a RCBD with four replications. The first experiment was irrigated twice
23
MATERIALS AND METHODS after sowing, at 45 days after sowing at tillering stage and 75 days after sowing at booting stage (normal condition), while, the second experiment was given just sowing irrigation only (drought stress condition). Sowing was done in 15th of November in both seasons. All recommended culture practices were applied at proper time according to ministry of agriculture recommended. The preceding crop was cotton in the two seasons. The test of homogeneity of error was applied, before carrying out the combined analysis, according to Bartlett (1937). Combined analysis of variance for each year was carried out according to Snedecor and Cochran (1967). Table (4): Name, pedigree and origin of the twenty barley genotypes.
genotypes Giza 126 Giza 132 Beacher Giza 121 Line 1 Line 2 Line 3 Line 4 Line 5 Line 6 Line 7 Line 8 Line 9 Line 10 Line 11 Line 12 Line 13 Line 14 Line 15 Line 16 Pedigree \ Name Origin BaladiBahteem/SD729-por12762-Bc Egypt Rihane-05//As46/Aths*2" Aths/ Lignee686 Egypt Introduced to Egypt from USA and named Giza-118 USA Baladi16/Gem Egypt Giza 117/3/ACSAD 618//Aths/Lignee 686 Egypt Giza 117/4/Kenya Research/Belle//As46/Aths*2/3/Arar/19-3//WI2294 Egypt Ssn/Bda//Arar/3/Arabayan-01//CI07117-9/Deir Alla 106 ICARDA ACSAD1182/4/Arr/Esp//Alger/Ceres362-1Egypt 1/3/WI/5/ACSAD1180/3/Mari/ Aths*2//M-Att-73-337-1 Giza 117/4/Kenya Research/Belle//As46/Aths*2/3/Arar/19-3//WI2294 Egypt ACSAD1182/HarmalEgypt 02/Salmas/4/Lignee527/NK1272/3/Nacha2//Lignee 640/ Harma-01 HOR 1657/4/GLORIA-BAR/COME-B//LIGNEE 640//5/G2000 Egypt Lignee 527/Chn-01/Gustoe/5/Alanda-01/4/WI2291/3/Api/CM67//L2966 ICARDA - 69 Alanda//Lignee527/Arar/5/Ager//Api/CM67/3/Cel/WI2269//Ore/4/HamraEgypt 1/6/ Lignee527/NK 1272/3/Nacha 2//Lignee 640/Harma-01 Giza 119/3/ESCOBA/BRB2//ALELI Egypt Giza 119/4/TOCTE//CEN-B/2*CALI92/3/MARCO/SEN//CARDO Egypt Giza 125/3/ACSAD 618//Aths/Lignee 686 Egypt CC 89/Saico Egypt ACSAD1182/HarmalEgypt 02/Salmas/5/ACSAD1182/4/Arr/Esp//Alger/Ceres362-1-1/3/WI ACSAD 1182/Harmal-02/Salmas/3/Saico Egypt ACSAD1182/HarmalEgypt 02/Salmas/5/ACSAD1182/4/Arr/Esp//Alger/Ceres362-1-1/3/WI
3.2. Data recorded:

3.2.1. Earliness Characters : 1-Heading date: Number of days from sowing to 50% of heading for all plants / plot.
24
MATERIALS AND METHODS 2-Maturity date: Number of days from sowing to 50% yellow stage of maturity for all plants / plot. 3.2.2. Growth Analysis: Half meter long guarded tillers were randomly taken from the second inner rows of each plot at 45, 65 and 85 days after sowing to determine the growth characters. Each sample was separated into stems and leaves, and then Leaf area (blades area) was measured by Portable Area Meter (Model LI-3000A). The tillers organs were dried separately in the electrical air-draft oven at 70oC until constant weight for determination of whole dry weight. The growth characters were estimated as follows:1- Total dray matter. (g/m2) 2- Crop Growth Rate (CGR): at an instant in time (t) is defined as the increase of tillers material per unit of time .
CGR ( w 2 - w1) ( t 2 - t1) g/m 2 /week.
CGR was measured accordin g to ( Radford, 1967 ). 2- Relative Growth Rate (RGR): at an instant in time (t) is defined as the increase of plant material per unit of material present per unit of time.
RGR (Log ) e w 2 Log e w1 ( t 2 - t1) g/g/week.
RGR was calculated according to ( Radford, 1967). 3- Net Assimilation Rate (NAR): at an instant in time (t) is defined as the increase of plant material per unit of material present per unit of assimilatory material per unit of time.
N.A.R ( w 2 - w1) (Log ) e A2 Loge A1 (A2 - A1) ( t 2 - t1) g/m 2 /week.
25
MATERIALS AND METHODS Where: w1, A1 and w2, A2 respectively refer to dry weight and leaf area at time (t1) and (t2) in week according to (Radford, 1967). 4- Leaf area index (LAI): it is defined as total area of leaves of the plants compared with the area of land occupied by the plants according to Watson (1952).as described by the following formula:
L.A.I Leaf area / tillers (cm 2 ) Tillers ground area (cm 2 )
5- Plant height (cm): ten plants were taken at random from each sub plot and measured in cm. from the soil surface to the top of the spike of the main tiller. 3.2.3.Physiological traits: 1- Total chlorophyll content (SPAD value): was determined by measuring the flag leaf total chlorophyll content by using analytical apparatus; chlorophyll meter (Model SPAD- 502) Minolta camera Co. Ltd, Japan. 2- Relative water content (RWC %): It was determined by the method of Barrs (1968). To determine the relative water content (RWC), the harvested leaf was cut into 12 cm sections, and immediately weighed (FW), then sliced into 2 cm sections and floated on distilled water for 4 hours. The turgid leaf discs were then rapidly blotted to remove surface water and weighed to obtain turgid weight (TW). The leaf discs were then oven dried for 2 hours at 60oC and dry weight (DW) was recorded. RWC was calculated by the formula:
R. W .C FW DW 100 TW DW
Where FW = fresh weight of leaf. DW = dry weight TW = full turgor.

26
MATERIALS AND METHODS 3-Water use efficiency (WUE): =

Grain yield in kg Growth irrigation water applied in m 3
(Michael, 1978).
3.2.4. Yield and Its Components: At harvest time, the central area from each plot was harvested to determine the following traits: 1. Number of spikes/m: It was estimated by counting all spikes per square meter. 2. Spike length (cm): ten spikes were selected by random and their lengths were measured, then average was calculated to express mean spike length in cm. 3. Number of grains/spike: Average number of grains in ten randomly chosen spikes was estimated. 1000-grain weight (g): A random sample of 1000-grains was taken from each plot, hand counted and weighted to record the mean weight of 1000 grains. 4. Biological yield (kg/fed.): It was recorded from all harvested plants / plot and converted to kg/fed. 5. Grain yield (kg/fed.): It was recorded from the grains of harvested plants/plot after threshing and then converted to kg/fed. 3.2.5. Drought tolerance indices: 1- Mean productivity
(M P) Ys Yp 2
(Hossain et al., 1990). (Fernandez, 1992).
2- Stress tolerance index
(STI)
Yp Ys Yp2
3- Geometrical mean productivity (GMP) (Yp Ys ) 0.5 (Fernandez,1992). 4- Yield index

(YI) Ys Ys
(Gavuzzi et al., 1997; Lin et al., 1986).

Ys Yp
27
5- Yield stability index (YSI)
(Bouslama and Schapaugh, 1984).
MATERIALS AND METHODS 6- Yield reduction ratio

(Yr) 1 Ys Yp
(Golestani and Assad, 1998).
Where Ys is the yield of genotype under stress, Yp is the yield of genotype under irrigated condition, Y s s and Y p are the mean yields of all genotypes under stress and non-stress conditions, respectively. 7- Stress susceptibility index (DSI) = (1-Yd/Yw)/D
(Fischer & Maurer, 1978). Where Yd = mean yield under drought, Yw = mean yield under normal condition, and D = environmental stress intensity = 1- (mean yield of all genotypes under drought/mean yield of all genotypes under irrigated conditions). Lower stress susceptibility index than unity (DSI <1) is synonymous to high stress tolerance, while high stress susceptibility index (DSI >1) means higher stress sensitivity. 3.2.6. Correlation coefficients: Estimates of the simple phenotypic correlation coefficients (r) among all traits for the entry means were calculated according to Kearsey and Pooni (1996). 3.2.7. Reduction ratio % : It provides a measure of drought tolerance based on minimization of loss under stressed conditions compared to irrigated conditions. This index was calculated from genotype means for each trait using the generalized flowing formula:
Reduction % = (irrigated - stressed / irrigated) 100.
(Choukan et al., 2006)
28
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4-RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Several a biotic stresses have a common element, among them, namely decreased cell water status including water deficit, salinity, and low temperature. The nomenclature used to describe water deficit stress is also diverse: drought, water stress, moisture stress and osmotic stress were used, but these may not be physiologically equivalent ( Artlip and Wisniewski, 2002). Drought tolerance or tolerance in native plant species is often defined as survival, but in crop species it must be defined in terms of productivity (Passioura, 1983). Barley is most sensitive to stress during jointing, booting and heading. Significant stress during grain filling substantially degrades barley yield. Grain yield reductions of 14 %, 8 %, and 4 % were measured for these three respective periods. Considering drought stress before, during and after heading, yield was reduced the most by stress just before heading. Thus, to eliminate yield-reducing, plan to irrigate before heading. Stress prior to or just after flowering reduce yield, the most compared to stress at other stages. While these yield reduction effects can be alleviated somewhat if the stress is relieved later in the season, yield recovery from stress near the flowering stage is lower than recovery from stress in early vegetative stages (Kirkpatrick et al., 2006). 4.1- Growth analysis and its attributes: 4.1.1-Dry matter accumulation (DM): The overall means of the effect of irrigation treatments, twenty barley genotypes and their interactions on DM during three growth stages are presented in Table (5). The results in Table (5) indicated that, dry matter (DM) was significantly affected by water stress. DM was higher in the irrigated treatment than in the stressed condition. Data indicated that, the
- 29 -
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION differences among irrigation treatments for DM at different stages were highly significant, suggesting genetic variability in these materials for stress and non-stress conditions. In general, DM significantly increased at normal irrigation than at stress one. Dry matter increased slowly at early stages of growth, and then increased rapidly with the advancement of plant age. The cause of rapid increase of DM at the later stages was possibly due to the development of a considerable number of late tillers, plant height and leaf area. These results are in harmony with those reported by Shahen (2005) and Mollah and Paul (2008). Table 5. Means of dry matter accumulation (DM) as affected by irrigation treatments and barley genotypes as well as its interaction at three growth stages in both growing seasons.
Dry matter accumulation (DM)
Characteristic Sample 1 (45 days) Sample 2 (65 days) Sample 3 (85 days)
2009/10 2010/11 Main effect of irrigation treatments

Irrigated 635 Stressed 591 LSD 0.05 2.51 Reduction% 7 Main effect of barley genotypes Giza 126 640 Giza 132 659 Beacher 570 Giza 121 626 L1 553 L2 610 L3 598 L4 720 L5 660 L6 655 L7 604 L8 674 L9 613 L 10 533 L 11 627 L 12 517 L 13 582 L 14 606 L 15 616 L 16 594 LSD 0.05 7.92 433 371 1531 31
656 679 560 642 566 619 605 755 669 683 610 701 633 548 650 521 599 597 626 552 11.14
2009/10
1286 1186 3.03 8
1274 1315 1158 1251 1158 1210 1233 1388 1288 1277 1218 1336 1247 1149 1260 1139 1211 1201 1234 1167 9.57
2010/11
3131 3135 2545 31
1330 1379 1198 1301 1200 1273 1271 1480 1353 1333 1250 1411 1303 1198 1323 1180 1255 1225 1276 1163 32555
2009/10
2677 2308 10.75 14
2478 2626 2384 2546 2307 2458 2477 2753 2584 2575 2466 2670 2527 2375 2509 2340 2416 2442 2501 2414 34.00
2010/11
1573 1211 2531 31
2687 2709 2528 2663 2421 2571 2546 2909 2721 2697 2548 2816 2680 2481 2666 2405 2507 2503 2613 2462 32517
- 30 -
Cont. Table 5.
Characteristic
Dry matter accumulation (DM)
Interaction
genotypes
Sample 1 (45 days) 2009/10 2010/11

Irrigated Stressed
Reduction
Sample 2 (65 days) 2009/10 2010/11

Irrigated Stressed
Reduction
Sample 3 (85 days) 2009/10 2010/11

Reduction % Irrigated Stressed Reduction % Irrigated Stressed Reduction %
Irrigated Stressed
Reduction %
Irrigated
Stressed
Giza 126 Giza 132 Beacher Giza 121 L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L 10 L 11 L 12 L 13 L 14 L 15 L 16 LSD 0.05
666 689 568 638 583 595 641 725 693 675 650 681 638 552 643 527 592 652 635 648
615 629 571 613 522 624 555 714 628 636 557 667 588 513 611 507 571 561 597 541
8 9 -1 4 10 -5 13 2 9 6 14 2 8 7 5 4 4 14 6 17 --
11.2
684 628 730 629 568 552 663 621 643 488 587 650 713 496 717 793 695 644 709 658 683 536 715 687 644 621 561 534 667 633 544 498 641 558 670 523 657 595 604 500 15.75
8 14 3 6 24 -11 30 -11 7 7 22 4 4 5 5 8 13 22 9 17 --
1316 1383 1195 1284 1215 1235 1329 1400 1345 1320 1281 1361 1287 1209 1302 1205 1251 1274 1277 1243
1232 1247 1121 1218 1101 1184 1138 1375 1231 1234 1155 1312 1207 1089 1218 1074 1171 1127 1190 1092
6 10 6 5 9 4 14 2 8 7 10 4 6 10 6 11 6 12 7 12
1386 1506 1218 1343 1345 1277 1463 1527 1423 1375 1377 1430 1314 1245 1376 1271 1340 1347 1335 1271
1275 1252 1179 1259 1055 1170 1078 1434 1283 1291 1123 1391 1292 1150 1270 1088 1169 1103 1217 1056
8 17 3 6 22 8 26 6 10 6 18 3 2 8 8 14 13 18 9 17
2590 2821 2601 2750 2444 2586 2709 2909 2789 2756 2665 2827 2736 2558 2701 2510 2573 2665 2693 2652
2366 2430 2167 2343 2170 2330 2246 2597 2380 2394 2267 2513 2318 2192 2316 2170 2259 2220 2309 2175
9 14 17 15 11 10 17 11 15 13 15 11 15 14 14 14 12 17 14 18
2860 2935 2695 2857 2675 2610 2889 2951 2904 2853 2821 2941 2808 2641 2816 2596 2664 2764 2795 2751
2515 2483 2362 2468 2168 2531 2204 2866 2537 2540 2275 2691 2551 2322 2516 2215 2349 2242 2430 2174
12 15 12 14 19 3 24 3 13 11 19 9 9 12 11 15 12 19 13 21
13.53
--
88.88
--
48.08
--
88.88
--
- 31 -
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The results clearly showed highly significant differences existed between barley genotypes in dry matter. Giza 132, L4, L5, L6 and L8 gave the highest values for DM compared with Giza 126 in the three samples in both seasons. The increases in growth analysis attributes were higher than can for by adding the increase in growth due to moisture. Highly significant interaction between barley genotypes and irrigation treatments was found in the three samples. In the first sample Giza 132, L4, L5, L6 and L8 had highest values for DM under both conditions in the first season, while, Giza 132, L4, L6 and L8 had the highest values under the irrigation treatment and L2, L4, L5, L6 and L8 had highest values under stress condition. The reduction percentage ranged from -5% in L2 to 17% in L16 in the first season and -11% in L2 and L4 to 30% in L3 in the second season. For the second sample, Giza 132, L4, L5 and L8 in the first season and Giza 132, L3, L4, L5 and L8 in the second season had the highest values for DM under irrigated treatment, While, Giza 132, L4 and L8 highest in the first season and L4 and L8 in the second season had values under the stressed treatment compared to Giza 126. The reduction percentage ranged from 2% in L4 to 17% in L16 in the first season and ranged from 2% in L9 to 26% in L3 in the second season. With respect to the third sample, Giza 132, Giza 121, L3, L4, L5, L6, L7, L8, L9, L11, L14, L15 and L16 under the irrigated treatment in the first season and Giza 132, L3, L4, L5, and L18 in the second season had higher values. Giza 132, L4 and L8 in the first season and L3, L4, L5, L6 and L8 in the second season under the stressed treatment had higher values for DM compared to Giza 126. The reduction percentage ranged from 9% in Giza 126 to 18% in L16 in the first season and 3% in L2 to 24% in L3 in the second season.
- 32 -
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1.2- Leaf area index (LAI): The overall means of the effect of irrigation treatments, twenty barley genotypes and their interactions on LAI during three growth stages are presented in Table (6). Irrigated treatment had higher leaf area index than the stressed one. LAI was exhibited the highest value under irrigated treatment and corresponding the lowest value obtained from the stressed treatment. LAI decreased with decreasing irrigation application, suggested that the leaf area decreased with increase in water stress. Table 6. Means of leaf area index (LAI) as affected by irrigation treatments and barley genotypes as well as its interaction at three growth stages in both growing seasons.
Leaf area index ( LAI)

Irrigated 6.73 Stressed 6.18 LSD 0.05 0.07 Reduction% 6 Main effect of barley genotypes
Giza 126 Giza 132 Beacher Giza 121 L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L 10 L 11 L 12 L 13 L 14 L 15 L 16 LSD 0.05 7.45 7.60 7.26 7.35 7.24 6.92 7.65 8.38 7.96 7.52 6.59 7.65 7.55 7.29 7.13 7.01 8.12 7.16 7.12 7.16 ..02
2009/10
23.60 21.92 0.06 7
22.55 22.80 22.09 22.73 22.10 22.52 22.74 23.44 23.17 23.01 23.25 23.65 22.25 22.22 22.42 22.89 23.08 22.64 22.94 22.78 0.25
2010/11
23.68 22.38 0.09 7
22.55 22.62 21.89 22.79 22.54 22.76 23.26 24.03 23.82 23.68 24.31 25.05 21.59 21.97 22.74 22.48 22.94 22.56 23.68 23.48 ..06
2009/10
11.69 9.33 0.04 20
10.71 11.09 9.93 10.37 10.09 10.54 10.38 11.34 11.11 10.80 10.11 11.09 10.53 10.43 10.33 10.38 10.61 10.11 10.02 10.24 0.13
2010/11
12.41 11.76 ...7 5
12.44 12.75 11.68 11.92 11.44 12.28 11.74 12.82 12.92 12.39 11.67 12.87 11.88 12.13 12.05 11.94 12.11 11.44 11.59 11.70 0.18
7.93 7.70 0.04 3

7.86 7.97 7.81 7.88 8.10 7.57 8.16 8.62 7.90 7.87 7.20 7.86 7.78 7.58 7.78 7.43 8.10 7.63 7.50 7.72 0.21
- 33 -
Cont. Table 6.
Characteristic
Leaf area index ( LAI)

Interaction Sample 1 (45 days) Sample 2 (65 days) 2009/10
Irrigated Stressed
Reduction
Sample 3 (85 days) 2009/10

Reduction % Irrigated Stressed Reduction % Irrigated
Genotypes Giza 126 Giza 132 Beacher Giza 121 L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L 10 L 11 L 12 L 13 L 14 L 15 L 16 7.72 7.8 7.56 7.64 7.37 7.07 7.86 8.55 8.37 7.81 6.9 7.77 7.8 7.73 7.28 7.24 8.13 7.38 7.16 7.45
2009/10
Irrigated Stressed
Reduction
2010/11
% Reduction Irrigated Stressed %
2010/11
% Irrigated Stressed
2010/11
Stressed Reduction %
7.18 7.4 6.96 7.06 7.1 6.76 7.45 8.2 7.55 7.22 6.29 7.53 7.31 6.85 6.98 6.77 8.1 6.94 7.08 6.86
7 5 8 8 4 4 5 4 10 8 9 3 6 11 4 6 0.4 6 1 8
--
7.99 8.07 7.96 8.02 8.16 7.64 8.26 8.71 8.11 8.02 7.35 7.92 7.91 7.80 7.86 7.55 8.11 7.74 7.52 7.87
--
7.72 7.87 7.66 7.74 8.03 7.49 8.06 8.54 7.70 7.72 7.05 7.80 7.66 7.36 7.71 7.32 8.10 7.52 7.48 7.57
3 2 4 3 2 2 2 2 5 4 4 2 3 6 2 3 0.1 3 1 4
--
23.52 23.65 22.30 22.86 22.65 23.28 23.43 23.85 23.67 23.94 24.31 23.68 23.06 23.43 23.80 24.18 24.18 24.30 23.80 24.17
21.58 21.95 21.89 22.61 21.54 21.76 22.05 23.02 22.67 22.08 22.18 23.63 21.44 21.00 21.03 21.60 21.99 20.99 22.09 21.40
8 7 2 1 5 7 6 3 4 8 9 0.2 7 10 12 11 9 14 7 11
23.25 23.28 22.32 22.88 23.07 23.44 23.82 24.19 24.56 24.94 25.31 25.68 22.06 22.43 22.80 23.18 23.55 23.92 24.30 24.67
21.68 21.95 21.45 22.70 22.01 22.08 22.70 23.86 23.08 22.42 23.31 24.41 21.12 21.51 22.67 21.78 22.33 21.20 23.06 22.29
7 6 4 1 5 6 5 1 6 10 8 5 4 4 1 6 5 11 5 10
11.77 12.34 11.23 11.27 11.34 11.84 11.54 12.41 12.18 11.90 11.44 12.29 11.65 11.65 11.66 11.58 11.88 11.38 11.21 11.27
9.66 9.84 8.63 9.48 8.84 9.24 9.22 10.28 10.04 9.69 8.78 9.89 9.42 9.22 9.00 9.19 9.33 8.83 8.84 9.22
18 20 23 16 22 22 20 17 18 19 23 20 19 21 23 21 21 22 21 18
12.56 13.11 12.05 12.06 12.02 12.89 12.03 12.98 13.04 12.43 12.29 13.13 12.09 12.54 12.60 12.25 12.63 11.90 11.99 11.85
12.32 12.40 11.31 11.78 10.87 11.67 11.45 12.67 12.80 12.35 11.05 12.61 11.67 11.72 11.50 11.62 11.60 10.99 11.19 11.54
2 5 6 2 10 9 5 2 2 1 10 4 3 7 9 5 8 8 7 3
LSD 0.05
3.01
0.29
--
3.00
--
0.18
--
3..5
--
- 34 -
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Leaf area index reached in a certain value in the second sample and then declined with plant age in the third sample. The increase of LAI occurred due to the increase of leaf expansion in the irrigated plants. Increase in soil moisture resulted in increased turgor pressure in the cells and turgor forces played a part in the process of leaf expansion. These results are in agreement with those obtained by Tarrad et al. (2002), Alam et al. (2003), Shahen (2005), Jazy et al. (2007) and Mollah and paul (2008). The results clearly showed highly significant differences existed between barley genotypes in LAI. These results indicated the different genetic background of the twenty barley genotypes. L4, L5 and L13 in the first season and L1, L3, L4 and L13 in the second season gave the highest values for LAI compared to Giza 126 in the first sample. While in the second sample, Giza 132, L4, L5, L6, L7, L8, L12, L13 and L15 in the first season and L3, L4, L5, L6, L7, L8, L13, L15 and L16 had higher values compared to Giza 126 in the second season. Giza 132, L4, L5 and L8 gave the highest values in the third sample in both seasons. The interaction between the irrigated treatments and barley genotypes had insignificant effect on this criterion in the first sample in the second season, these results are in agreement with those obtained by El-Banna et al. (2002). While, highly significant effect was observed in first sample in the first season and both of second and third samples in both seasons. In first sample, L4 and L5 under irrigated and L4, L5, L8 and L13 under stress had the highest values. L4, L6, L7, L12, L13, L14 and L16 in the second season had the highest values for LAI under irrigated treatment, while Giza 132, Beacher, Giza 121, L3, L4, L5, L6, L7, L8 and L15 gave the highest values under stress. In the third sample Giza 132, L4, L5 and L8 gave the highest values under irrigation, while Giza 132, L2, L4, L5, and L8 gave the highest values under both
- 35 -
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION conditions. These results indicated that, the behavior of these genotypes differed from environment to another and ranked differently from stress to normal irrigation in the second and third samples, but in the first sample, it did not affected by changing environments. 4.1.3-Crop growth rate (CGR): Crop growth rate of four barley verities and sixteen lines estimated at two growth intervals (45-65 days and 65-85 days after sowing) as affected by tow irrigation treatments (irrigated and stressed) and their interactions are presented in Table (7). Table 7. Means of crop growth rate (CGR) as affected by irrigation treatments and barley genotypes as well as its interaction at three growth stages in both growing seasons.
Crop growth rate (CGR) CGR 1 (45-65 days) CGR 2 (65-85 days)
2009/10
464 374 3.65 19
401 437 409 432 383 416 415 455 432 433 416 445 427 409 416 400 402 414 422 415 11.53
Characteristic

Irrigated 217 Stressed 198 LSD 0.05 1.39 Reduction% 9 Main effect of barley genotypes
Giza 126 Giza 132 Beacher Giza 121 L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L 10 L 11 L 12 L 13 L 14 L 15 L 16 LSD 0.05 211 219 196 209 202 200 212 223 209 207 205 221 212 205 211 208 210 198 206 191 4.38
2010/11
478 405 8027 15
452 443 443 454 407 449 425 476 456 455 433 469 459 428 448 409 417 426 446 433 6.86
235 205 80.2 13

225 233 213 220 212 202 222 242 228 217 214 237 224 217 224 220 218 210 217 204 6.58
- 36 -
Cont. Table 7.
Characteristic
Crop growth rate (CGR)

Interaction
CGR 1 (45-65 days)

Genotype
Irrigated
CGR 2 (65-85 days)

2010/11 2009/10
Reduction%
2009/10
Stressed
Reduction%
2010/11
Reduction%
Irrigated
Stressed
Irrigated
Stressed
Irrigated
Stressed
Reduction%
Giza 126 Giza 132 Beacher Giza 121 L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L 10 L 11 L 12 L 13 L 14 L 15 L 16 LSD0.05
217 231 209 215 211 213 229 225 217 215 210 226 217 219 220 226 219 208 214 198
6.19
206 206 183 202 193 187 194 220 201 199 199 215 206 192 202 189 200 189 198 184
5 11 12 6 9 12 15 2 7 7 5 5 5 12 8 16 9 9 7 7
234 259 217 227 234 230 250 270 243 222 231 238 224 228 236 242 233 226 226 222
9.31
216 208 209 213 189 173 194 214 213 211 196 235 224 205 212 197 204 193 207 185
8 20 4 6 19 25 22 21 12 5 15 2 0 10 10 19 13 14 8 17
425 479 469 489 410 450 460 503 481 479 461 489 483 450 467 435 441 463 472 470
16.31
378 394 348 375 356 382 369 407 383 387 371 401 370 368 366 366 363 364 373 361
11 18 26 23 13 15 20 19 20 19 20 18 23 18 22 16 18 21 21 23
491 476 492 505 443 454 475 477 494 493 481 504 498 465 480 442 441 472 487 493 9.70
413 410 394 403 371 444 375 475 418 416 384 433 420 391 415 376 393 380 404 373
16 14 20 20 16 2 21 1 15 15 20 14 16 16 13 15 11 20 17 24
- 37 -
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Results showed highly significant differences of CGR values due to irrigation treatments at both growth intervals. In general, the CGR means in the stressed treatment had been significantly lower than the irrigated treatment, where the CGR reduction as the result of water stress. CGR changes turned resembled in both treatments, but the irrigated treatment had superiority over that of the stressed treatment during all studied stages. Reduction of the CGR under water stress condition was due to reduction of the LAI and the NAR. These results are in agreement with those obtained by Alam et al. (2003), Shahen (2005), Jazy et al. (2007) and Mollah and Paul (2008). Genotypes had highly significant different in CGR means. Where, Giza 132, L4 and L8 had the highest values in the first growth intervals in both seasons. Most genotypes exceeded Giza 126 in the second growth intervals, especially Giza132, L4 and L8 in first season, while L8 only had the highest value in the second one. Highly significant interaction between barley genotypes and irrigation treatments was found in the two growth intervals. In the first season under irrigated treatment, Giza 132, L3, L4, L8 and L12 had the highest values, while Giza 121 and L8 in the second season. In the first season, all genotypes except L1, L12 and L13 exceeded Giza 126 in the second growth intervals under irrigation condition. However, L4 and L8 had the highest values under the stressed treatment compared to Giza 126.in the second season Giza 121 and L8 had the highest values in the second growth intervals under irrigation condition, while L2, L4 and L8 were the highest under stress condition. The CGR reduction ratio between irrigated and stressed treatments in the second growth intervals continued more violently compared with the first growth intervals.
- 38 -
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1.4- Net assimilation rate (NAR): Net assimilation rate as affected by irrigation treatments and barley genotypes as well as their interactions in tow growth intervals are presented in Table (8). Table 8. Means of net assimilation rate (NAR) as affected by irrigation treatments and barley genotypes as well as its interaction at three growth stages in both growing seasons. Net assimilation rate (NAR)
Characteristic NAR 1 (45-65 days) NAR 2 (65-85 days)

Irrigated Stressed LSD 0.05 Reduction% 6.56 6.34 0.05 3 7.08 6.47 .0.0 9 7.02 7.20 6.77 6.79 6.50 6.33 6.67 6.98 6.85 6.56 6.58 6.93 7.17 6.95 6.98 7.00 6.64 6.60 6.68 6.24 .0.0
2009/10
11.88 11.15 0.10 6
2010/11
11.90 10.66 .0.7 10 11.57 11.17 11.82 11.74 10.78 11.50 10.94 11.59 11.10 11.31 10.88 11.11 12.24 11.20 11.54 10.64 10.68 11.26 11.41 11.08
Main effect of barley genotypes Giza 126 6.59 Giza 132 6.72 Beacher 6.19 Giza 121 6.46 L1 6.29 L2 6.32 L3 6.46 L4 6.52 L5 6.40 L6 6.37 L7 6.52 L8 6.68 L9 6.67 L 10 6.55 L 11 6.63 L 12 6.55 L 13 6.36 L 14 6.24 L 15 6.48 L 16 5.97 LSD 0.05 0.15
11.00 11.75 11.66 11.93 10.93 11.52 11.49 11.87 11.47 11.69 11.54 11.70 11.79 11.46 11.62 11.08 10.91 11.61 11.80 11.55
0.33
0.21
- 39 -
Cont. Table 8.
Characteristic NAR 1 (45-65 days) Genotypes
Irrigated
Net assimilation rate (NAR)

Interaction NAR 2 (65-85 days)
2009/10
Stressed
Reduction%
2010/11
Irrigated Stressed Reduction%
2009/10
Irrigated Stressed
Reduction%
2010/11
Irrigated Stressed Reduction%
6.54 6.92 6.52 6.60 6.42 6.59 6.83 6.50 6.51 6.41 6.43 6.83 6.64 6.69 6.62 6.87 6.48 6.23 6.58 5.93
12.0
6.63 6.52 5.87 6.31 6.16 6.05 6.09 6.54 6.29 6.33 6.60 6.52 6.69 6.40 6.65 6.23 6.25 6.25 6.37 6.02
-1 6 10 4 4 8 11 -1 3 1 -3 5 -1 4 -0.5 9 4 -0.3 3 -1
7.11 7.82 6.76 6.94 7.08 7.09 7.39 7.74 7.10 6.46 6.92 6.86 7.03 7.15 7.32 7.55 6.99 6.83 6.86 6.57 0.29
6.93 6.57 6.78 6.64 5.92 5.58 5.96 6.22 6.60 6.65 6.25 7.00 7.32 6.76 6.65 6.44 6.30 6.36 6.51 5.91
3 16 0 4 16 21 19 20 7 -3 10 -2 -4 5 9 15 10 7 5 10
10.84 11.99 12.61 12.95 10.87 11.59 11.90 12.48 12.10 12.07 11.74 12.23 12.55 11.59 11.92 11.05 11.07 11.82 12.26 12.07
12.0
11.17 11.51 10.71 10.91 10.98 11.44 11.08 11.26 10.85 11.30 11.34 11.17 11.02 11.33 11.32 11.12 10.75 11.41 11.33 11.03
-3 4 15 16 -1 1 7 10 10 6 3 9 12 2 5 -1 3 3 8 9
12.29 11.68 12.83 12.97 11.36 10.94 11.96 11.45 11.78 11.91 11.60 11.69 13.05 11.88 12.12 11.19 10.94 11.91 12.13 12.25 12.1
10.84 10.66 10.81 10.51 10.20 12.07 9.92 11.73 10.41 10.71 10.15 10.53 11.44 10.52 10.96 10.09 10.43 10.61 10.70 9.91
12 9 16 19 10 -10 17 -2 12 10 13 10 12 11 10 10 5 11 12 19
- 40 -
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The results in Table (8) indicated that NAR was significantly affected by water stress. Lower NAR was in the stressed treatment than in the irrigated treatment. The reduction percentage was 3% and 9% in the first growth intervals and 6% and 10% in the second growth intervals in first and second seasons, respectively. The trend of changes of NAR had a high similarity with both irrigated treatments, where it increased in the second growth intervals more than first growth intervals. This period was corresponding with the maximum LAI and dry mater accumulation period. These results are in harmony with those of Alam et al. (2003), Shahen (2005), Jazy et al. (2007) and Mollah and Paul (2008). Results of NAR showed highly significant difference among barley genotypes in both growth intervals. In first growth intervals Giza 132, L8, L9 and L11 recorded higher values in first season, while Giza 126, Giza 132, L9 and L11 were the higher genotypes in second season. In second growth intervals all genotypes exceeded Giza 126 except L1 and L13 were lower in first season, while Beacher, Giza 121 and L9 were the higher genotypes in second season. The interaction between the irrigated treatments and barley genotypes had a highly significant effect was observed at both growth intervals. Under irrigated treatment, Giza 132, L3, L8 and L12 in first season and Giza 132, L4 and L12 in second season had the highest values in the first growth intervals, while, all genotypes were lower than Giza 126, except L9 and L11 in first season and L10 in second season were exceeded in the first growth intervals under stressed treatment. However, all genotypes in first season and Beacher and L9 in the second season exceeded Giza 126 under irrigated treatment in second growth intervals, while, there insignificant different between all genotypes and Giza 126 in first season under the stressed treatment in the second growth intervals.
- 41 -
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION However, L2 and L9 in the second growth intervals were the heights under stress in second season. 4.1.5- Relative growth rate (RGR): The overall mean values of the effect of irrigation treatments, twenty barley genotypes and their interactions on RGR in tow growth intervals are presented in Table (9). Table 9. Means of net assimilation rate (NAR) as affected by irrigation treatments and barley genotypes as well as its interaction at three growth stages in both growing seasons. Relative growth rate (RGR)
Characteristic RGR 1 (45-65 days) RGR 2 (65-85 days)
2009/10 Main effect of irrigation treatments

Irrigated 0.102 Stressed 0.101 LSD 0.05 0.0007 Reduction% 1 Main effect of barley genotypes Giza 126 0.100 Giza 132 0.100 Beacher 0.103 Giza 121 0.100 L1 0.107 L2 0.099 L3 0.105 L4 0.095 L5 0.097 L6 0.097 L7 0.102 L8 0.099 L9 0.103 L 10 0.111 L 11 0.101 L 12 0.114 L 13 0.106 L 14 0.099 L 15 0.100 L 16 0.098 LSD 0.05 0.002
2010/11
0.106 0.104 .0..0 2
0.102 0.102 0.110 0.102 0.109 0.099 0.108 0.098 0.102 0.097 0.104 0.101 0.105 0.113 0.103 0.118 0.107 0.105 0.103 0.108 .0..0
2009/10
0.106 0.096 0.0007 9
0.095 0.100 0.104 0.102 0.100 0.103 0.101 0.099 0.100 0.101 0.102 0.100 0.102 0.105 0.099 0.104 0.100 0.103 0.102 0.105 0.002
2010/11
0.104 0.101 0.0005 3
0.102 0.098 0.108 0.103 0.102 0.108 0.101 0.098 0.101 0.102 0.103 0.100 0.104 0.105 0.101 0.103 0.100 0.103 0.104 0.108 0.002
- 42 -
Cont. Table 9.
Characteristic RGR 1 (45-65 days) Genotype
Irrigated
Relative growth rate (RGR)

Interaction RGR 2 (65-85 days)
2009/10
Stressed Reduction% Irrigated
2010/11
2009/10
2010/11
Stressed Reduction%
0.099 0.101 0.108 0.101 0.106 0.106 0.106 0.095 0.096 0.097 0.098 0.100 0.102 0.113 0.102 0.120 0.108 0.097 0.101 0.095
0.101 0.099 0.098 0.099 0.108 0.093 0.105 0.095 0.097 0.096 0.106 0.098 0.104 0.109 0.100 0.109 0.104 0.101 0.100 0.102
-2 2 9 2 -2 12 1 0 -1 1 -8 2 -2 4 2 9 4 -4 1 -7
0.102 0.105 0.110 0.102 0.107 0.113 0.104 0.109 0.104 0.096 0.102 0.100 0.103 0.115 0.105 0.123 0.107 0.101 0.103 0.108
0.103 0.100 0.110 0.102 0.112 0.085 0.112 0.086 0.100 0.098 0.107 0.102 0.106 0.111 0.101 0.113 0.107 0.108 0.104 0.108
0 5 1 0 -4 24 -8 22 4 -2 -5 -2 -3 4 4 8 0 -7 -1 0
0.097 0.104 0.113 0.110 0.102 0.107 0.104 0.106 0.106 0.107 0.106 0.106 0.109 0.109 0.106 0.106 0.105 0.107 0.108 0.110
0.094 0.097 0.095 0.095 0.098 0.098 0.099 0.092 0.095 0.096 0.098 0.094 0.094 0.101 0.093 0.102 0.095 0.098 0.096 0.100
3 7 16 14 3 9 5 13 10 10 8 11 14 7 13 4 9 8 11 9
0.003
0.005
.0..0
0.105 0.098 0.097 0.099 0.115 0.101 0.109 0.097 0.100 0.104 0.103 0.112 0.099 0.104 0.095 0.100 0.103 0.099 0.106 0.098 0.104 0.102 0.104 0.096 0.110 0.098 0.109 0.102 0.104 0.099 0.103 0.103 0.099 0.101 0.104 0.103 0.107 0.100 0.112 0.105 0.002
6 -3 13 11 -5 -8 -5 -5 4 7 2 8 10 7 5 0 -2 1 6 6
- 43 -
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION It was observed that different significantly due to irrigation treatments. RGR was exhibited the highest values when irrigated thrice and corresponding the lowest values obtained from the stressed treatment. The smaller DM and CGR may be responsible for the significant decrease in RGR. These results are in agreement with those obtained by Alam et al. (2003) and Shahen (2005). Genotypes had highly significant different in RGR mean, where Beacher, L1, L3, L9, L10, L12 and L13 in first season and Beacher, L1, L3, L10 and L16 in second season had the highest values in the first growth intervals, while in the second growth intervals, all genotypes exceeded Giza 126 especially L10 and L16 in first season and L2, L10 and L16 had the highest values in second season. Highly significant interaction between barley genotypes and irrigation treatments was found in the two growth intervals. Under irrigated treatment, Beacher, L1, L2, L3, L10, L12 and L13 in first season and Giza 132, L4 and L8 in second season had the highest values in the first growth intervals, while all genotypes exceeded Giza 126 in first season and Beacher, Giza 121, L9, L10 and L16 had the highest values in second season in the second growth intervals. However, Beacher, L1, L3, L10 and L12 had the highest values in second season under stress condition in the first growth intervals, while Beacher, L7, L10, L12, L13 and L13 had the highest values in second season. 4.1.6- Relative water content (RWC): Relative water content of twenty barley genotypes estimated at both growth stages (45-65 and 85 days after sowing) as affected by tow irrigation treatments (irrigated and stressed) and their interactions are presented in Table (10).
- 44 -
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 10. Means of relative water content (RWC) as affected by irrigation treatments and barley genotypes as well as its interaction at three growth stages in both growing seasons. Relative water content ( RWC)

Irrigated 0.94 39.0 Stressed 0.91 0.88 LSD 0.05 0.003 0.008 Reduction% 3 5 Main effect of barley genotypes Giza 126 0.95 0.93 Giza 132 0.95 0.90 Beacher 0.93 0.89 Giza 121 0.92 0.90 L1 0.92 0.93 L2 0.92 0.94 L3 0.94 0.92 L4 0.92 0.92 L5 0.92 0.91 L6 0.93 0.94 L7 0.94 0.82 L8 0.83 0.93 L9 0.93 0.89 L 10 0.92 0.94 L 11 0.93 0.90 L 12 0.92 0.87 L 13 0.94 0.93 L 14 0.92 0.90 L 15 0.92 0.86 L 16 0.94 0.93 LSD 0.05 0.01 0.03
2009/10
0.89 0.83 0.004 7
2010/11
0.88 0.82 0.007 7 0.84 0.87 0.84 0.84 0.87 0.87 0.85 0.87 0.86 0.86 0.78 0.82 0.82 0.85 0.88 0.85 0.84 0.86 0.84 0.84
2009/10
0.78 0.71 0.007 9
2010/11
0.89 0.71 0.009 20 0.76 0.84 0.75 0.80 0.73 0.69 0.76 0.78 0.76 0.73 0.68 0.79 0.73 0.77 0.80 0.69 0.71 0.74 0.70 0.75 0.03
0.85 0.88 0.85 0.84 0.88 0.88 0.84 0.88 0.87 0.88 0.78 0.82 0.86 0.88 0.91 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.86 0.87 0.01
0.77 0.83 0.73 0.81 0.73 0.70 0.75 0.78 0.77 0.73 0.68 0.79 0.74 0.77 0.79 0.69 0.71 0.73 0.70 0.74
0.02
0.02
Results showed highly significant different RWC value due to irrigation treatments at both growth intervals. In general, the RWC means in the stressed treatment had been significantly lower than the irrigated treatment, where the RWC reduction as the result of water stress. RWC changes turned resembled in both treatments, but the irrigated treatment had superiority over that of the stressed treatment during all the stages.
RWC was demonstrated to be a relevant screening tool of drought tolerance
- 45 -
Cont. Table 10.
Characteristic
Relative water content ( RWC) Interaction

Sample 1 (45 days) 2009/10 2010/11
Irrigated Stressed
Reduction
Genotypes
Sample 2 (65 days) 2009/10 2010/11

Irrigated Stressed
Reduction
Sample 3 (85 days) 2009/10 2010/11

Irrigated Stressed
Reduction %
Irrigated
Stressed
0.95 0.92 0.95 0.89 0.93 0.90 0.93 0.92 0.96 0.91 0.97 0.92 0.94 0.90 0.93 0.91 0.93 0.92 0.95 0.93 0.86 0.80 0.93 0.92 0.94 0.90 0.95 0.94 0.95 0.90 0.93 0.92 0.97 0.90 0.96 0.88 0.93 0.91 0.95 0.93 0.02
3 6 3 1 5 5 4 2 1 2 7 1 4 1 5 1 7 8 2 2 --
0.93 0.92 0.93 0.87 0.92 0.86 0.93 0.87 0.96 0.91 0.97 0.90 0.94 0.90 0.93 0.90 0.92 0.89 0.96 0.93 0.84 0.80 0.93 0.92 0.94 0.85 0.96 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.90 0.84 0.97 0.90 0.93 0.87 0.91 0.82 0.94 0.92 0.04
2 7 7 7 5 6 4 4 4 2 5 2 10 3 10 7 7 6 11 3 --
0.89 0.81 0.89 0.87 0.90 0.80 0.86 0.82 0.90 0.86 0.90 0.86 0.90 0.78 0.90 0.85 0.89 0.86 0.89 0.86 0.82 0.73 0.86 0.79 0.88 0.83 0.89 0.86 0.92 0.89 0.87 0.83 0.88 0.83 0.88 0.85 0.88 0.83 0.91 0.83 0.02
9 2 11 4 5 5 13 6 3 3 11 8 5 3 3 5 6 4 6 9
0.86 0.88 0.86 0.85 0.89 0.89 0.88 0.90 0.89 0.88 0.86 0.85 0.88 0.86 0.92 0.87 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.91 0.03
0.81 0.86 0.83 0.82 0.86 0.86 0.81 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.69 0.79 0.76 0.85 0.83 0.82 0.80 0.84 0.80 0.77
6 2 4 3 3 4 8 6 6 5 19 7 13 2 10 6 10 5 9 15
0.82 0.84 0.78 0.82 0.78 0.75 0.77 0.82 0.81 0.78 0.71 0.80 0.81 0.78 0.84 0.74 0.73 0.78 0.73 0.77 0.03
0.72 0.81 0.68 0.80 0.67 0.66 0.73 0.74 0.73 0.68 0.65 0.77 0.67 0.76 0.74 0.64 0.68 0.67 0.68 0.71
12 3 13 3 14 12 6 9 10 13 8 4 17 2 12 14 7 14 7 8
-- 46 -
--
--
0.82 0.70 0.86 0.82 0.81 0.68 0.83 0.77 0.78 0.67 0.73 0.66 0.79 0.74 0.81 0.74 0.79 0.73 0.78 0.68 0.71 0.65 0.80 0.77 0.79 0.67 0.80 0.74 0.87 0.74 0.74 0.64 0.73 0.68 0.80 0.67 0.73 0.68 0.79 0.71 0.04
15 5 16 7 14 10 6 8 8 12 8 4 15 7 14 13 6 16 7 11
--
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION in cereals, as well as a good indicator of plant water-status relative to their fully turgid condition. During drought stress, relative growth rates were
more reduced. Maintenance of relative water content contribute to the

increased yield and yield stability under drought, in cereals. Drought tolerance genotypes showed less significant decreases in photosynthesis and greater accumulation of soluble sugars and starch than drought sensitive genotypes.These results are in agreement with those obtained by Tarrad et al. (2002), Klar and Santos (2008), Sorin et al. (2008) and Vaezi el al. (2010). The results showed highly significant differences existed between genotypes in relative water content. Giza 132 and Giza 126 in first season and L2, L6 and L10 in second season gave the highest values for RWC in the first sample. However, Giza 132, L1, L2, L4, L5, L6, L10, L11, L14 and L16 exceeded Giza 126 in first season and Giza 132, L1, L2, L4 and L11 in second season gave the highest values in the second sample, while, Giza 132 and Giza 121 in first season and Giza 132, Giza 121 and L11 in second season were exceeded Giza 126 in the third sample. Highly significant interaction between barley genotypes and irrigation treatments was found in the three growth stages. In the first growth stage, L2 and L13 had the highest values under irrigated treatment in both seasons, while, Giza 126, Giza 132, L5, L8, L12 and L16 in first season and Giza 126, L6, L10 and L16 in second season had the highest values under stressed treatment. In the second growth stage, Giza 132 in first season and L4and L11 in second season had the highest values under irrigated treatment, while, Giza 132, L1, L2, L4, L5, L6, L10, L11 and L14 in first season and Giza 132, L1and L2 in second season had the highest values under the stressed treatment compared to Giza 126. In the third growth stage, Giza 132 and L11 in first season and L11 in second season had the highest values under irrigated treatment, while, Giza 132,
- 47 -
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Giza121, L8 and L10 in first season and Giza 132, Giza 121and L8 in second season had the highest values under the stressed treatment compared to Giza 126. The RWC reduction ratio between irrigated and stressed treatments in the third growth stage continued more violently compared with the first and second growth stages. 4.1.7- Total chlorophyll content: The overall means of the effect of irrigation treatments, twenty barley genotypes and their interactions on the total chlorophyll content during three growth stages are presented in Table (11). Table 11. Means of total chlorophyll content as affected by irrigation treatments and barley genotypes as well as its interaction at three growth stages in both growing seasons.
Total chlorophyll content

Irrigated 32.11 90.23 Stressed 33.64 99.31 LSD 0.05 0.35 0.50 Reduction% -5 -5 Main effect of barley genotypes
Giza 126 Giza 132 Beacher Giza 121 L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L 10 L 11 L 12 L 13 L 14 L 15 L 16 LSD 0.05 31.90 32.97 31.13 34.57 32.47 33.43 32.88 33.72 31.67 33.98 31.08 35.22 32.27 34.67 31.57 32.68 31.95 33.43 32.83 33.05 1.11 31.90 32.97 30.69 34.57 32.47 33.43 32.88 33.72 31.67 33.98 31.08 35.22 32.27 34.67 31.57 32.68 31.95 33.43 32.83 33.05 1.95
2009/10
32.72 35.81 0.31 -9
34.27 35.02 33.56 36.23 34.24 35.01 33.01 37.41 34.16 32.66 31.71 35.61 32.59 34.93 31.84 35.45 34.38 32.86 37.06 33.31 0.97
2010/11
35.11 37.49 0.44 -7
36.70 37.33 36.13 39.68 37.40 37.03 34.70 39.13 36.33 34.18 33.38 36.78 35.63 36.00 34.18 36.65 35.23 34.85 40.40 34.40 1.38
2009/10
33.85 39.62 0.37 -17
36.14 38.29 34.85 37.47 37.26 37.30 34.43 38.33 35.15 35.08 35.01 39.30 36.06 37.16 36.35 38.75 37.68 34.01 39.01 37.10 1.16
2010/11
36.15 44.71 0.57 -24
39.63 42.43 38.75 42.95 41.43 41.63 38.63 41.40 38.70 39.23 38.43 43.58 40.43 42.33 41.38 41.18 40.98 37.18 39.98 38.45 1.79
- 48 -
Cont. Table 11.
Characteristic
Total chlorophyll content
Interaction
Genotypes Giza 126 Giza 132 Beacher Giza 121 L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L 10 L 11 L 12 L 13 L 14 L 15 L 16 LSD 0.05
Sample 1 (45 days) 2009/10 2010/11

Irrigated Stressed
Reduction
Sample 2 (65 days) 2009/10 2010/11

Irrigated Stressed
Reduction
Sample 3 (85 days) 2009/10 2010/11

Irrigated Stressed
Reduction %
Irrigated
Stressed
31.23 32.57 31.33 34.60 30.45 31.81 34.43 34.70 31.00 33.93 31.40 35.47 32.00 33.77 33.23 34.20 30.80 32.53 33.93 34.03 30.43 31.73 34.50 35.93 32.07 32.47 33.97 35.37 30.17 32.97 31.47 33.90 29.87 34.03 32.90 33.97 32.44 33.22 32.37 33.73 1.57
-4 -10 -4 -1 -9 -13 -6 -3 -6 -0.3 -4 -4 -1 -4 -9 -8 -14 -3 -2 -4
31.23 32.57 31.33 34.60 30.20 31.18 34.43 34.70 31.00 33.93 31.40 35.47 32.00 33.77 33.23 34.20 30.80 32.53 33.93 34.03 30.43 31.73 34.50 35.93 32.07 32.47 35.37 33.97 30.17 32.97 31.47 33.90 29.87 34.03 32.90 33.97 33.22 32.44 32.37 33.73 --
-4 -10 -3 -1 -9 -13 -6 -3 -6 -0.3 -4 -4 -1 4 -9 -8 -14 -3 2 -4
33.70 34.84 34.26 35.78 30.85 36.28 35.48 36.98 33.70 34.78 33.40 36.63 31.10 34.93 35.73 39.10 32.78 35.55 30.98 34.35 30.45 32.98 33.08 38.15 30.38 34.80 33.23 36.63 29.50 34.18 33.65 37.25 32.93 35.83 31.85 33.88 35.96 38.16 31.50 35.13 1.37
-3 -4 -18 -4 -3 -10 -12 -9 -8 -11 -8 -15 -15 -10 -16 -11 -9 -6 -6 -12
36.40 37.00 36.60 38.05 33.00 39.25 38.80 40.55 37.35 37.45 36.05 38.00 32.80 36.60 37.80 40.45 36.00 36.65 33.25 35.10 32.10 34.65 33.90 39.65 34.15 37.10 35.10 36.90 33.40 34.95 35.85 37.45 34.25 36.20 33.80 35.90 38.95 41.85 32.60 36.20 1.95
-2 -4 -19 -5 -0.3 -5 -12 -7 -2 -6 -8 -17 -9 -5 -5 -4 -6 -6 -7 -11
34.21 38.08 35.90 40.68 30.65 39.05 34.43 40.50 34.10 40.43 34.80 39.80 31.25 37.60 37.65 39.00 31.08 39.23 32.05 38.10 33.00 37.03 36.48 42.13 33.88 38.25 33.98 40.35 32.65 40.05 32.73 44.78 33.95 41.40 32.30 35.73 36.66 41.37 35.28 38.93 1.65
-11 -13 -27 -18 -19 -14 -20 -4 -26 -19 -12 -15 -13 -19 -23 -37 -22 -11 -13 -10
37.40 41.85 39.70 45.15 31.95 45.55 37.40 48.50 36.35 46.50 39.70 43.55 33.70 43.55 40.55 42.25 34.10 43.30 34.75 43.70 34.65 42.20 38.95 48.20 36.70 44.15 37.15 47.50 35.30 47.45 33.45 48.90 34.60 47.35 34.45 39.90 35.70 44.25 36.45 40.45 2.53
-12 -14 -43 -30 -28 -10 -29 -4 -27 -26 -22 -24 -20 -28 -34 -46 -37 -16 -24 -11
- 49 -
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The results showed that the stressed treatment resulted in higher value, compared with the irrigated treatment in three growth stages. This results agreed with Rana et al. (2006) reported that the photosynthesis per unit leaf area was not initially reduced by stress, particularly in the moretolerant genotypes, as the chlorophyll per unit area was higher in stress than non-stress conditions (the leaves were narrower, the cells were smaller, and so the chloroplast density was greater). Generally, all growth analysis and its attributes were decreased under drought stress, except total chlorophyll content. The results showed highly significant differences existed between barley genotypes in total chlorophyll content. Giza 121, L2, L4, L6, L8, L10, L14 and L16 in first season and Giza 121, L6, L8 and L10 in second season gave the highest values for total chlorophyll content compared to Giza 126 in the first sample. While, Giza 121, L4, L8, L12 and L15 in first season and Giza 121, L4, and L15 in second season had higher values compared to Giza 126 in second sample. Giza 132, Giza 121, L4, L8, L12, L13 and L15 in first season and Giza 132, Giza 121, L1, L2, L8 and L10 in second season gave the highest values in the third sample. The interaction between the irrigated treatments and barley genotypes had a highly significant effect on this criterion in the three samples except for first sample in second season was insignificant. In general Giza 121, L4, L6, L8 and L15 had the highest values under irrigated treatment, while, Giza 131, Beacher, Giza 121, L4, L8, L10, L11, L12 and L15 had the highest values under stressed treatment. These results indicated that, the behavior of these genotypes differed from environment to another and ranked differently from stress to normal irrigation as well as combined for all growth analysis and attributes.
- 50 -
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1.8- Days to heading: Heading date would be used in barley and favorable for escaping from destructive injuries by stress conditions. Days to heading affected by irrigation treatments and barley genotypes as well as their interactions at both growing seasons are presented in Table (12). Table 12. Means of heading date as affected by irrigation treatments and barley genotypes as well as its interaction at three growth stages in both growing seasons.
Characteristic Treatment Irrigated Stressed LSD 0.05
Reduction%
Days to heading (days)

Irrigation treatments
2009/10 81.20 78.61 0.64 3.19 2010/11 90.49 86.13 3.28 4.82
Barley genotypes
Means Genotype
2009/10 2010/11 89.63 90.25 87.25 88.63 89.13 89.50 95.63 86.50 87.25 86.63 88.13 89.25 85.75 91.38 87.00 85.88 88.25 87.38 85.13 87.63
Interaction 2009/10
Irrigated Stressed
2010/11
Giza 126 Giza 132 Beacher Giza 121 L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L 10 L 11 L 12 L 13 L 14 L 15 L 16

LSD 0.05
81.33 81.92 78.17 80.50 80.67 80.67 84.67 79.33 80.50 79.65 79.83 82.06 77.75 81.83 79.00 77.11 78.83 78.36 77.33 78.67
82.00 82.8 80.33 81.33 81.67 81.33 86.00 80.67 81.33 80.33 81.00 83.67 79.50 83.67 80.67 78.33 80.67 80.13 79.00 79.67
80.67 81.04 76.00 79.67 79.67 80.00 83.33 78.00 79.67 78.97 78.67 80.46 76.00 80.00 77.33 75.88 77.00 76.58 75.67 77.67
Reduction Reduction Irrigated Stressed % % 91.00 88.25 2 3 91.75 88.75 2 3 89.50 85.00 5 5 90.25 87.00 2 4 90.75 87.50 2 4 90.75 88.25 2 3 96.50 94.75 3 2 89.50 83.50 3 7 89.75 84.75 2 6 90.00 83.25 2 8 91.50 84.75 3 7 93.00 85.50 4 8 87.25 84.25 4 3 93.75 89.00 4 5 88.75 85.25 4 4 87.50 84.25 3 4 90.25 86.25 5 4 90.25 84.50 4 6 88.50 81.75 4 8 89.25 86.00 3 4
1.13
2.21
--
--
- 51 -
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The days required for heading were not similar in the two years of this study, due to the difference in water applied (rainfall and irrigation water), also the maximum temperature was high and the relative humidity and rainfall were low in the first season, compared with the second season (Table 3). The results showed that genotypes under stress condition were earlier than irrigated condition which received less water than the later ones. These results are in agreement with those obtained by Farhat (2005), Samarah el al. (2009) and Vaezi el al. (2010) The earlier genotypes were Beacher, L9, L12 and L15, while the latest genotype was L3 at both growing seasons. The difference between the earliest genotype L12 and the latest L3 genotype for days to heading was 7.56 days in the first season, while, between the earliest L15 genotype, and the latest L3 genotype reached 10.5 days in the second season for days to heading. Genotypes under stress condition were earlier than irrigated condition which received less water than the later ones, thus reducing the drought escape effect and the advantages of earliness with respect to field conditions. Despite that, the present results show that in barley, precocity continued to be appositive trait for yield under stress conditions. The interaction between the irrigated treatments and barley genotypes was insignificant in both growing seasons. However, it seems that these genotypes did not affected by changing environments. These results are in agreement with those obtained by Mugabe and Nyakatawa (2000), El-Ganbeehy (2001), Tawfelis et al. (2001), El-Banna et al. (2002), Samarah el al. (2009), Refay (2010) and Ali el al. (2012). 4.1.9- Days to maturity: Maturity date would be used in barley and favorable for escaping from destructive injuries by stress conditions.
- 52 -
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Days to maturity affected by irrigation treatments and barley genotypes as well as their interactions at both growing seasons are presented in Table (13). Table 13. Means of maturity date as affected by irrigation treatments and barley genotypes as well as its interaction at three growth stages in both growing seasons.
Characteristic Treatment Irrigated Stressed LSD 0.05 Reduction% 2009/10 119.13 115.71 0.33 3
Days to maturity (days)

Irrigation treatments 2010/11 128.16 122.81 0.88 4
Barley genotypes
Genotype Means 2009/10 2010/11 Interaction 2009/10
Irrigated Stressed Reduction% Irrigated
2010/11
Stressed Reduction%
119.02 120.42 115.48 117.28 116.95 116.69 121.62 115.58 116.42 116.82 117.11 121.13 115.75 119.59 117.36 115.98 116.82 115.85 115.98 116.56 1.05
128.00 129.75 123.25 124.63 124.88 124.38 131.75 123.00 124.00 124.63 125.38 129.25 123.00 128.00 125.88 123.25 125.25 123.63 124.50 123.38 2.79
120.00 118.04 121.80 119.04 117.83 113.13 119.05 115.50 118.33 115.58 118.25 115.13 123.08 120.17 117.45 113.71 118.30 114.54 118.68 114.96 119.55 114.67 122.80 119.46 117.50 114.00 121.18 118.00 118.68 116.04 118.08 113.88 118.68 114.96 118.13 113.58 117.50 114.46 117.75 115.38 --
2 2 4 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 2 4 3 4 3 2
128.75 132.25 127.00 127.75 126.50 126.50 134.50 126.25 127.25 128.00 129.75 131.50 125.75 131.00 128.00 125.25 127.75 127.25 127.00 125.25 --
127.25 127.25 119.50 121.50 123.25 122.25 129.00 119.75 120.75 121.25 121.00 127.00 120.25 125.00 123.75 121.25 122.75 120.00 122.00 121.50
1 4 6 5 3 3 4 5 5 5 7 3 4 5 3 3 4 6 4 3
The days required for maturity were not similar in the two years of this study, due to the difference in water applied (rainfall and irrigation water), also the maximum temperature was high and the relative humidity
- 53 -
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION and rainfall were low in the first season, compared with the second season (Table 3). The results showed that the genotypes under stress condition were earlier than irrigated condition which received less water than the later ones. These results are in agreement with those obtained by Farhat (2005), Samarah el al. (2009) and Vaezi el al. (2010). The results clearly showed highly significant existed between these genotypes in number of days to maturity, reflecting the diversity of the genotypes for this study character. The difference between the earliest genotype (Beacher variety) and the latest L3 genotype for days to maturity was 6 days in the first season, and between the earliest L4 genotype, and the latest L3 genotype was 8 days in the second season for days to maturity. All genotypes were earlier than Giza126, except Giza132, L3, L8 and L10 which needed longer time to reach maturity in both seasons. Therefore, earlier genotypes received less water in total than the later ones, thus reducing the drought escape effect and the advantages of earliness with respect to field conditions. Despite that, the present data show that in barley, precocity continued to be appositive trait for yield under stress conditions. Finally, the superior genotypes which recorded earlier had wider adaptability overall environments because their good expression for most drought measurements under normal and stress conditions. Hence, it could be concluded that these genotypes are valuable in breeding for earliness and yield potentiality. The interaction between the irrigated treatments and barley genotypes was insignificant in both growing seasons. However, it seems that these genotypes did not affected by changing environments. These
results are in agreement with those obtained by Mugabe and Nyakatawa (2000), Tawfelis et al. (2001), Refay (2010) and Ali el al. (2012).
- 54 -

4.1.9. Plant height:
In both seasons, a tallest plant was achieved when plants were grown under the well-watered treatment compared with those plants grown under the stress treatments (Tables 14). The reduction in plant height with drought severity could be attributed to lower crop growth rate and the decrease in relative water content. These results are in harmony with those of Nabipour et al. (2002), Bayoumi (2004), Mohamed (2004), Farhat (2005), Mahmoud (2006), Bagheri and abad (2007), Samarah el al. (2009) and Vaezi el al. (2010). Table 14. Means of plant height as affected by irrigation treatments and barley genotypes as well as its interaction at three growth stages in both growing seasons.
Characteristic
Plant height (cm)

Irrigation treatments 2009/10 103.08 96.55 0.90 6 2010/11 115.44 111.41 1.50 3
Treatment Irrigated Stressed LSD 0.05 Reduction% Means 2009/10 99.18 103.38 84.65 101.90 98.41 97.85 104.04 100.52 102.02 101.69 106.06 100.23 102.40 93.88 104.70 98.95 100.69 98.83 95.13 101.75
2.86
Barley genotypes
Interaction 2009/10
Genotype Giza 126 Giza 132 Beacher Giza 121 L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L 10 L 11 L 12 L 13 L 14 L 15 L 16 LSD 0.05
2010/11
Stressed Reduction%
2010/11 109.38 121.50 97.63 113.38 109.00 114.88 119.00 117.38 120.50 117.88 120.13 115.50 115.25 104.63 120.00 113.75 114.25 109.88 103.25 111.38
4.73
105.45 92.92 107.43 99.33 87.38 81.92 106.13 97.67 100.45 96.38 100.83 94.88 105.70 102.38 103.58 97.46 104.20 99.83 103.55 99.83 111.50 100.63 102.25 98.21 105.80 99.00 97.80 89.96 108.08 101.33 101.95 95.96 103.80 97.58 99.95 97.71 101.00 89.25 104.75 98.75 4.04
12 8 6 8 4 6 3 6 4 4 10 4 6 8 6 6 6 2 12 6
113.25 123.50 98.75 116.25 110.25 116.75 119.75 118.75 121.75 119.75 124.25 116.25 117.75 107.00 122.25 114.25 116.00 111.75 107.00 113.50
105.50 119.50 96.50 110.50 107.75 113.00 118.25 116.00 119.25 116.00 116.00 114.75 112.75 102.25 117.75 113.25 112.50 108.00 99.50 109.25
7 3 2 5 2 3 1 2 2 3 7 1 4 4 4 1 3 3 7 4
--
- 55 -
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Plant height is directly linked to the productive potential of plant in terms of grain yield. In the present investigation, a significant reduction in plant height was noticed due to water stress. All genotypes suffered strong depression (average of 6 and 3 % in first and second season, respectively.) from the irrigated condition. The reduction in plant height of stressed plants may be due to the reduction in internodes length and/or due to the reduction in moisture absorption, nutrient uptake, and photosynthesis under drought stress conditions. Since straw yield is used for animal feeding, tallness if genotypes are desirable in new reclaimed lands because of its propriety for mechanized harvesting. With respect to the genotypes mean values, results showed highly significant differences existed between barley genotypes. Giza132, L3, L7, and L11 gave the highest values for Plant height compared to Giza 126 in the first season. While, Giza132, L2, L3, L4, L5, L6, L7, L8, L9, L11 and L13 had higher values compared to Giza126 in the second season. Most genotypes were taller than Giza 126, especially Giza132, L3, L5, L7 and L11. While, Beacher, L10 and L15 genotypes were the shortest in both treatments and both seasons. The interaction between the irrigated treatments and barley genotypes had a highly significant effect on this criterion only in the first season. These results are in agreement with those obtained by Tawfelis et al. (2001), Hassaan (2003), Abd El-Ati and Zaki (2006), El-Afandy (2006), Khalil et al. (2006), Menshawy et al. (2006), Khayatnezhad el al. (2010) and Ali el al. (2012). The reduction percentage ranged from 2% in L14 to 12% in Giza 126 and L15. L7 was the tallest genotype under irrigated treatment, while, under stressed treatment most of genotypes were taller than Giza 126 in the first season, showed the tallest plants for this trait in the same order
- 56 -
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION that mean increasing number of irrigations, beef up barley growth cell elongation and cell division resulted in total plants. The above explanation clarified why more irrigation numbers boosted up the plant height. Abed El-Hamid (2009) reported that the effect of water stress is mainly on cell division and enlargement. The interaction between the irrigated treatments and barley genotypes was insignificant in the second season. These results indicated that, the behavior of genotypes did not affected by changing environments. These results are in agreement with those obtained by Mugabe and Nyakatawa (2000), El-Ganbeehy (2001), Mahgoub and Sayed (2001), Samarah el al. (2009), Khayatnezhad el al. (2010), Refay (2010), Mollah and Paul (2011) and Zare el al. (2011). 4. 2. Yield and yield components: 4.2.1. Spike length: The overall mean values of the effect of irrigation treatments, twenty barley genotypes and their interactions on spike length in both growing seasons and combined are presented in Table (15). Irrigated treatment had higher spike length than the stressed treatment. spike length (7.07 and 7.94cm in the first and second growing seasons, respectively) was exhibited the highest value under irrigated treatment and corresponding the lowest value obtained from the stressed treatment (6.36, 7.44 and 6.9) cm in the first, second growing seasons and combined, respectively. The reduction percentage was 10 and 6 % the first and second growing seasons, respectively. These results are in agreement with those obtained by Moursi (2003), Bayoumi (2004), Mohamed (2004), Farhat (2005), Mahmoud (2006) and Samarah el al. (2009). For means of the twenty barley genotypes, results showed highly significant differences existed between barley genotypes. Giza 132, Giza 121, L8, and L10 gave the highest values for spike length compared to
- 57 -
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Giza 126 in the first season, while, Giza 132, Giza 121, L6, L8, and L10 gave the highest values for spike length in the second growing season and combined. Table 15. Means of spike length as affected by irrigation treatments and barley genotypes as well as its interaction at three growth stages in both growing seasons.
Reduction%
Spike length (cm)

2009/10 2010/11
7.07 6.36 0.12 10 Barley genotypes

Means
2009/10 2010/11
7.63 8.25 7.13 8.88 7.38 7.25 6.50 7.50 7.63 8.88 8.13 8.63 7.63 9.00 8.13 7.25 8.00 7.25 5.75 7.00 0.66 6.88 7.87 5.92 7.53 6.50 6.29 6.38 6.15 6.50 7.05 6.98 7.54 6.62 7.38 6.59 6.30 7.00 6.23 5.88 6.73 0.37
7.94 7.44 0.21 6

Interaction 2009/10
Genotype Giza 126 Giza 132 Beacher Giza 121 L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L 10 L 11 L 12 L 13 L 14 L 15 L 16

LSD 0.05
2010/11
Stressed Reduction%
7.00 8.70 6.30 7.80 6.88 6.58 6.63 6.68 6.88 7.43 7.43 7.95 6.95 7.63 6.93 6.43 7.80 6.43 6.18 6.83 0.52
6.75 7.04 5.54 7.25 6.13 6.00 6.13 5.63 6.13 6.67 6.54 7.13 6.29 7.13 6.25 6.17 6.21 6.04 5.58 6.63
4 19 12 7 11 9 8 16 11 10 12 10 9 7 10 4 20 6 10 3
7.75 8.75 7.25 9.25 7.50 7.25 6.75 7.75 7.75 9.25 8.50 9.00 8.00 9.25 8.50 7.50 8.25 7.50 6.00 7.00
7.50 7.75 7.00 8.50 7.25 7.25 6.25 7.25 7.50 8.50 7.75 8.25 7.25 8.75 7.75 7.00 7.75 7.00 5.50 7.00
3 11 3 8 3 0 7 6 3 8 9 8 9 5 9 7 6 7 8 0
--
Highly significant interaction between barley genotypes and
irrigation treatments was found in the first season only, where Giza 132,
Giza121, L8 and L10 gave the highest values for spike length compared to
- 58 -
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Giza 126 under both treatments. But, the interaction between barley genotypes and irrigation treatments was insignificant in the second growing season. These results are in harmony with those of Khayatnezhad el al. (2010), Refay (2010), Zare el al. (2011) and Ali el al. (2012). 4.2.2. Spikes number/m2 : Results collected on the spikes number/m2 as affected by irrigation treatments, twenty genotypes and their interaction are presented in Table (16). Table 16. Means of spikes number/m2 as affected by irrigation treatments and barley genotypes as well as its interaction at three growth stages in both growing seasons.
Characteristic
Spikes number/m2 Irrigation treatments

2009/10 434.73 333.82 6.30 23 2010/11 482.58 378.44 12.79 22
Treatment Irrigated Stressed LSD 0.05 Reduction%
Barley genotypes Genotype

Means
2009/10 387.44 398.87 370.37 400.14 370.41 382.74 380.34 399.23 363.70 414.42 364.86 399.93 365.34 411.25 358.48 360.60 432.00 382.04 343.86 399.38 19.92 2010/11 413.13 449.17 399.17 454.38 402.29 419.38 447.29 473.54 422.08 446.88 429.17 441.88 440.83 461.88 404.58 414.58 467.29 412.29 375.42 435.00 40.46
Interaction 2009/10
2010/11
Stressed Reduction%
430.08 344.80 444.90 352.85 411.98 328.76 437.68 362.60 413.63 327.20 418.18 347.31 440.90 319.78 445.10 353.37 415.40 312.01 489.13 339.71 394.70 335.03 461.60 338.25 429.68 301.00 442.25 380.26 447.10 269.87 428.30 292.91 490.33 373.67 441.18 322.91 379.98 307.75 432.45 366.32 28.18
20 21 20 17 21 17 27 21 25 31 15 27 30 14 40 32 24 27 19 15
470.00 533.33 453.33 495.00 463.33 470.00 538.33 513.33 486.67 510.00 458.33 485.00 481.67 475.00 476.67 456.67 513.33 473.33 408.33 490.00 --
356.25 365.00 345.00 413.75 341.25 368.75 356.25 433.75 357.50 383.75 400.00 398.75 400.00 448.75 332.50 372.50 421.25 351.25 342.50 380.00
24 32 24 16 26 22 34 16 27 25 13 18 17 6 30 18 18 26 16 22
- 59 -
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Regarding to the influence of irrigation treatments on this trait, the data clearly show that spikes number/m2 was highly significant affected by irrigation treatments at both growing seasons. The irrigated treatment recorded the highest number of spike/m2 (434.73 and 482.58 spikes in first and second growing seasons, respectively). The severe drought stress treatment decreased spike number compared with the well-watered treatment in both growing seasons. Such response may be attribute to lack of water absorbed and reduction in photosynthetic efficiency under insufficient water condition. Moreover, the reduction in assimilates translocated to new developing tillers might owe much the death of the new tillers and depressed the number of spikes primordial. These results are confirmed by EL-Hawary (2000), Abd El-Wahab (2002), Bayoumi (2004), Mohamed (2004), Farhat (2005), Mahmoud (2006), Bagheri et al. (2007), Samarah el al. (2009) and Vaezi el al. (2010). There were signicant differences in spikes number/m2 among genotypes in both growing seasons and combined. L6, L10, and L13 gave the highest values for spikes number compared to Giza 126 in the first season, while, Giza 132, Giza 121, L3, L4, 6, L8, L9, L10, L13 and L16 gave the highest values in the second growing season. There was a signicant interaction of irrigation treatments genotypes for spike number in the first growing season. L6, L8 and L13 gave the highest values for spike number compared to Giza 126 under irrigated treatment, while, L10 and L13 were the highest under stressed treatment in the first season. These results are in agreement with those obtained by Sadek (2000), Tawfelis et al. (2001) Abo-Warda (2002), Hefnawy and Wahba (2003b), Abd El-Ati and Zaki (2006), and Mamnouie el al. (2006). But, the interaction between barley genotypes and irrigation treatments was insignificant in the second growing season, where many other researchers found similar result such as, Mugabe and
- 60 -
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Nyakatawa (2000), El-Ganbeehy (2001), El-Banna et al. (2002), Moussa and Abdel-Maksoud (2004), El-Afandy (2006), Menshawy et al. (2006), Samarah el al. (2009), Khayatnezhad el al. (2010), Refay (2010), Mollah and Paul (2011), Zare el al. (2011) and Ali el al. (2012). 4.2.3. Grains number per spike: Concerning response of grains number per spike to irrigation treatments, the results presented in Table (17), indicated that grains number per spike was affected by irrigation treatments. This trend hold true in both growing seasons. It could be noticed that, the exposure of plants to water shortage at any developmental growth stages decreased significantly number of grains per spike. Water stress at various stages, especially before anthesis, can reduce the number of ear heads and number of grains per spike. The reduction percentage was 12, 6 and 9% the first, the second growing seasons and combined, respectively. This reduction might be due to the reduction in fertilizer application. Moreover, the reduction in photosynthetic efficiency and the lack of photosynthates translocated to the developing seeds by adding irrigation might owe much to these results. According to Ceccarelli (1987), water deficit during the early stage of plant development induces a reduction in spikelets primordia, while water deficit late in the plant development increases death of the flower and the entire spikelet. The number of grains per spike (fertility) depends on water availability during the early vegetative phase and during shooting stage. If water deficit occurs after the flowering stage, it induces a decrease of grain weight and thus its yield. The results are supported with obtained by EL-Hawary (2000), Abd El-Wahab (2002), Moursi (2003), Bayoumi (2004), Mohamed (2004), Farhat (2005), Mahmoud (2006), Bagheri et al. (2007), Samarah el al. (2009) and Vaezi el al. (2010).
- 61 -
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 17. Means of grains number per spike as affected by irrigation treatments and barley genotypes as well as its interaction at three growth stages in both growing seasons.
Characteristic
Grains number per spike

2009/10 2010/11
Treatment Irrigated Stressed LSD 0.05

Reduction%
56.05 49.14 0.78 12
61.04 57.23 1.48 6
Barley genotypes
LSD 0.05
55.64 61.05 49.44 51.85 47.50 50.36 56.84 51.78 51.14 47.98 49.82 58.31 55.46 58.91 52.47 51.29 49.08 48.14 54.73 50.05 2.48
Means
2009/10 2010/11
61.88 65.53 52.04 57.66 57.46 58.99 62.96 57.48 54.50 55.72 56.67 65.48 63.86 66.68 59.53 56.08 57.74 54.63 62.72 55.14 4.67
Interaction 2009/10
2010/11
Stressed Reduction%
57.10 54.18 63.13 58.98 55.38 43.51 54.00 49.71 53.48 41.53 56.18 44.55 58.73 54.96 52.60 50.95 55.23 47.05 51.38 44.59 54.08 45.56 61.48 55.15 58.60 52.32 62.18 55.64 55.48 49.46 55.20 47.38 52.85 45.31 52.03 44.26 56.90 52.55 55.00 45.09 3.50
5 7 21 8 22 21 6 3 15 13 16 10 11 11 11 14 14 15 8 18
62.50 61.27 67.47 63.60 54.33 49.75 58.85 56.47 61.47 53.45 61.73 56.25 67.27 58.65 60.75 54.20 58.00 51.00 61.33 50.10 60.53 52.80 66.30 64.67 67.42 60.30 68.40 64.95 61.00 58.05 60.07 52.10 58.93 56.55 55.25 54.00 63.30 62.13 60.13 50.15 6.61
2 6 8 4 13 9 13 12 12 18 13 2 11 5 5 13 4 2 2 17
The differences among genotypes were highly significant in both growing seasons, indicating that overall differences between two irrigation treatments. Giza132 produced the highest number of grains per spike,
- 62 -
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION followed by L8 and L10 in the first season, while, L10 gave the highest value compared to Giza 126 in the second season. Regarding the interaction effect between genotypes and irrigation treatments, highly significant interactions were observed in both seasons. These results indicated that, the behavior of genotypes affected by changing environments. These results are in agreement with those obtained by El-Ganbeehy (2001), Mahgoub and Sayed (2001), AboWarda (2002), Hassaan (2003), Hefnawy and Wahba (2003), Abd ElAti and Zaki (2006), Samarah el al. (2009), Refay (2010) and Zare el al. (2011). Giza132 and L8 produced the highest number of grains per spike compared to Giza126 under irrigated treatment and all the rest of genotypes were insignificant compared with Giza126, while, Giza132 was the highest and most of genotypes were lower than Giza126 under stressed treatment in the first season. In the second season, all genotypes were insignificant compared with Giza126 under irrigated treatment, except Beacher and L14 were lower than Giza126, while under the stressed treatment most of genotypes were lower than Giza126 and none exceeded Giza126. 4.2.4.1000-grain weight (g): Means of 1000-grain weight as affected by irrigation treatments and barley genotypes as well as their interactions in both growing seasons and combined are presented in Table 18. Results in Table (18) show that, 1000-grain weight was significantly affected by irrigation treatments. Generally, it could be noticed that, this reduction might be attributed to that water deficits
during the vegetative, flowering and grain filling stages, which reduce available assimilate for grain filling and retranslocation of stored assimilates to grains which in turn cause a reduction in grain size. Drought
- 63 -
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION stress is known to reduce 1000-grain weight by shortening the grain-filling period. These results are in agreement with those obtained by Dutt (1988), Nabipour et al. (2002), Moursi (2003), Bayoumi (2004), Mohamed (2004), Farhat (2005), Mahmoud (2006), Bagheri et al. (2007), Samarah el al. (2009) and Vaezi el al. (2010). Table 18. Means of 1000-grain weight as affected by irrigation treatments and barley genotypes as well as its interaction at three growth stages in both growing seasons.
Characteristic
1000-grain weight (g)

2009/10 2010/11

Reduction%
52.05 48.77 0.43 6 Barley genotypes

Means
2009/10 2010/11
53.60 50.04 0.85 7

Interaction 2009/10

LSD 0.05
2010/11
Stressed Reduction%
48.43 45.91 46.39 53.07 50.82 51.62 41.01 50.15 52.13 52.56 58.58 41.92 50.85 39.48 54.78 52.00 51.73 53.77 58.82 54.22 1.37
49.61 47.18 47.98 57.43 50.68 53.12 42.86 51.04 53.24 54.02 61.19 42.76 50.46 41.29 56.15 51.77 53.45 56.63 60.70 54.75 2.69
49.10 47.77 47.23 44.59 49.18 43.60 54.08 52.06 53.48 48.16 52.50 50.75 42.55 39.47 51.80 48.49 53.00 51.27 55.83 49.29 60.38 56.79 42.38 41.46 53.38 48.33 41.33 37.64 56.80 52.76 53.48 50.52 53.13 50.33 54.98 52.56 60.88 56.76 55.50 52.95 1.94
3 6 11 4 10 3 7 6 3 12 6 2 9 9 7 6 5 4 7 5
50.09 49.14 48.20 46.16 51.64 44.33 57.61 57.26 55.33 46.04 53.50 52.75 43.33 42.40 52.58 49.51 54.69 51.79 59.23 48.81 62.89 59.50 43.04 42.48 54.86 46.07 42.70 39.88 57.64 54.66 52.46 51.08 54.86 52.03 58.38 54.89 62.92 58.48 56.01 53.48 3.80
2 4 14 1 17 1 2 6 5 18 5 1 16 7 5 3 5 6 7 5
- 64 -
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Regarding the differences among barley genotypes for 1000-grain weight, highly significant effect was obtained in both seasons and combined analysis. L7 and L15 were then supreme weight of other genotypes in both seasons, also most genotypes exceeded Giza 126, expect Giza 132, Beacher, L3, L8 and L10 were the least weight in both seasons. Highly significant interactions between barley genotypes and irrigation treatments were observed in both seasons as shown in Table 18 revealed that L1, L4, L6 and L9 exceeded Giza 126 under irrigated treatment, while, weighting less under the stressed treatment in both seasons. These results are in agreement with those obtained by Tawfelis et al. (2001), Abo-Warda (2002), Hefnawy and Wahba (2003), Kheiralla et al. (2004), Abd El-Ati and Zaki (2006), Menshawy et al. (2006), Samarah el al. (2009) and Refay. (2010). 4.2.5. Biological yield: Means of biological yield (kg/fed) as influenced by irrigation treatment, twenty barley genotypes and their interaction are presented in Table (19). Results show highly significant different among irrigation treatments in both seasons, where the irrigated treatment outyielded the stressed treatment. The reduction percentage was 41, 46 and 44% at the first season, the second and combined, respectively. The biological and grain yields were decreased under drought stress. The biological yield differences were related to low plant height, leaf area and tiller numbers; grain yield differences were caused by reduction in spikes/plant and grains/spike. These results are confirmed by Moursi (2003), Bayoumi (2004), Bagheri et al. (2007) and Refay (2010). Results in Table (19) show that genotypes exhibited highly significant different biological yield. In both seasons, where Giza 132, L4
- 65 -
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION and L8 produced the highest values compared with Giza 126. While, Beacher, L1, L10 and L12 recorded the lowest genotypes in both seasons. The interaction between the irrigated treatments and barley genotypes was insignificant in both growing seasons. These results are confirmed by Moussa and Abdel-Maksoud (2004), Khayatnezhad el al. (2010), Refay (2010), Mollah and Paul (2011) and Zare el al. (2011). Table 19. Means of biological yield as affected by irrigation treatments and barley genotypes as well as its interaction at three growth stages in both growing seasons.
Characteristic
Biological yield (kg fed.-1)

2009/10 2010/11

Reduction%
9100 5394 174 41 Barley genotypes
11550 6199 379 46

Interaction 2009/10
Genotype
Means
2009/10 7607 8102 6755 7354 6426 7015 7236 8159 7459 7512 7190 7928 7053 6419 7234 6440 7130 7152 7140 7627 550 2010/11 9225 10300 7975 8925 7950 8275 9275 10163 9638 9350 8900 9988 9038 7700 9275 7425 8438 8738 8738 8175 1198
2010/11
Stressed Reduction%
9339 10420 8468 9107 8825 8665 9283 9820 9064 9367 9311 9929 8546 8005 9292 8104 9188 9054 8868 9346 --
5875 5783 5042 5600 4028 5366 5189 6498 5853 5658 5068 5927 5560 4833 5177 4776 5073 5251 5413 5907
37 45 40 39 54 38 44 34 35 40 46 40 35 40 44 41 45 42 39 37
12000 14050 10200 11600 11250 10450 12500 12625 12400 12000 11950 12625 11200 9725 11950 9750 11250 11375 11350 10750 --
6450 6550 5750 6250 4650 6100 6050 7700 6875 6700 5850 7350 6875 5675 6600 5100 5625 6100 6125 5600
46 53 44 46 59 42 52 39 45 44 51 42 39 42 45 48 50 46 46 48
- 66 -
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.2.6. Grain yield: The results showed that grain yield was greater under irrigated than under water stress conditions (Table 20). Table 20. Means of grain yield as affected by irrigation treatments and barley genotypes as well as its interaction at three growth stages in both growing seasons.
Characteristic
Grain yield (kg fed.-1)

2009/10 2010/11

Reduction%
3150 1999 77 37
4143 2639 152 36
Barley genotypes
Means Genotype
2009/10 2010/11
Interaction 2009/10 2010/11

Reduction Reduction Irrigated Stressed Irrigated Stressed % %

LSD 0.05
2682 2671 2447 2640 2361 2617 2285 3018 2687 2768 2341 2812 2570 2275 2794 2473 2502 2479 2514 2556 243
3519 3513 3069 3488 3194 3613 3094 4250 3625 3744 3106 3725 3381 2963 3725 3125 3163 3206 3356 2963 482
3240 3246 2911 3204 3108 3184 2883 3536 3262 3409 2863 3372 3000 2726 3511 3152 3085 3188 3052 3071 --
2123 2097 1984 2075 1615 2050 1687 2500 2112 2128 1819 2252 2140 1823 2077 1795 1918 1770 1975 2041
34 35 32 35 48 36 41 29 35 38 36 33 29 33 41 43 38 44 35 34
4238 4288 3638 4200 4225 4375 3963 4925 4400 4613 3863 4300 3888 3475 4638 4025 3838 4125 4063 3788 --
2800 2738 2500 2775 2163 2850 2225 3575 2850 2875 2350 3150 2875 2450 2813 2225 2488 2288 2650 2138
34 36 31 34 49 35 44 27 35 38 39 27 26 29 39 45 35 45 35 44
- 67 -
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The grain yield/plant under stress environments is dependent up on stress susceptibility yield potential, and stress escape. The susceptibility of a plant genotype to stress in the product of many physiological and morphological traits for which effective selection criteria have not yet been developed (Fisher and Maurer, 1978). Therefore, grain/plant and attributes remain as major selection criteria for improved adaptation to stress environments in many breeding programs.
As a result of water stress condition, the average of grain yield for these genotypes decreased. Several investigators reported that,
drought stress reduced photosynthesis and translocation rates and increased respiration, which reduced available assimilates for grain filling and finally decreased grain yield (El-Naggar, 2010). As drought stress severity increased, grain yield decreased for all genotypes in both seasons. The percentage of reduction in grain yield by the severe drought stress treatment was 37 % and 36 % in first, second seasons, respectively. Average yields (calculated as kg fed -1) in irrigated treatment varied from 3150 to 4143 kg fed-1, and in stressed treatment, they varied from 1999 to 2639 kg fed-1 in the first and the second seasons, respectively. These results are in good agreement with the findings of Dutt (1988), EL-Hawary (2000), Mohammed (2001), Nabipour et al. (2002), Bayoumi (2004), Moursi (2003), Mohamed (2004), Farhat (2005), Mahmoud (2006) Bagheri and Abad (2007) Santos et al. (2008) Samarah el al. (2009), Refay (2010) and Vaezi el al. (2010). Under both water stress and irrigated conditions, L4 revealed the highest grain yield for the two years. Results from this study reveal that the differences in yield between barley genotypes grown in optimal and water stress conditions were the least in earlier genotypes that show a longer grain-filling period. The breeding line (L4) yielded by these traits
- 68 -
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION were more than common barley varieties. While, L10 showed the lowest yield compared with the other genotypes in both seasons. The watering treatment genotypes interaction effect was insignicant for grain yield in both seasons. These results are in agreement with those obtained by El-Ganbeehy (2001), El-Banna et al. (2002), Moussa and Abdel-Maksoud (2004), Khayatnezhad el al. (2010), Refay (2010) and Mollah and Paul (2011). As shown in Table 20, L4 and L8 not only revealed the best grain yield under the water stress, but they also had very good yield potentials under irrigated conditions. These suggest that they possess wide-range adaptation to the environment. These results are in harmony with those of Vaezi el al. (2010). Results in Table (21) showed that the yield was the highest in Giza132, L2, L4, L5, L6, L8 and L11. Also, they showed no reduction in yield compared with Giza 126. On the other hand, L10, Beacher, L3 and L7 were the lowest, while, reduction averages in stress condition compared with normal condition were lowest in L9, L10 and Beacher, and the highest reduction was obtained in L1, L11, L14, L12 and L6. Grain yield under irrigated condition was adversely correlated with stress condition (Table 23). Finlay (1968) and Blum (1979) suggested that high potential yield under optimal conditions, generally gave the same trend under stress condition, thus indirect selection for a drought-prone environment based on the results of optimum conditions could be efficient and should give a positive yield response under stress.
7.2.4. Water use efficiency (WUE): Water use efficiency (WUE) is often considered an important determinant of yield under stress and even as a component of crop drought resistance. As well as water utilization efficiency is a useful measure in evaluating irrigation practice; particularly under deficit
- 69 -
irrigation technique, where irrigation water is searched. Such measure illustrated the crop performance as irrigation water was applied water that require for crop yield potentiality (Michael, 1978).
Table (21). Grain yield status of barley genotypes in drought trail compared to local variety (Giza126) in 2009-2010 and 20102011 seasons.
Yield (%) of genotypes compared to yield of Mean of Difference to Average Giza126 two trials Giza1261 reductions2 N S Giza 126 100 100 100 0.00 1277 Giza 132 101 100 100 -0.27 1349 Beacher 88 89 88 -11.04 1032 Giza 121 99 99 99 -1.18 1277 L1 98 90 94 -10.41 1778 L2 101 100 101 0.47 1330 L3 92 87 89 -13.26 1467 L4 113 117 115 17.22 1193 L5 102 102 102 1.80 1350 L6 107 105 106 5.03 1510 L7 90 88 89 -12.15 1278 L8 103 105 104 5.42 1135 L9 92 96 94 -4.02 937 L 10 83 84 84 -15.54 964 L 11 109 105 107 5.13 1630 L 12 96 90 93 -9.72 1579 L 13 93 91 92 -8.65 1259 L 14 98 92 95 -8.32 1628 L 15 95 95 95 -5.33 1245 L 16 92 89 90 -11.00 1340 1 Deference of grain yields of 20 genotypes to local variety (Giza126) under both conditions. 2 Average reduction of grain yield of 20 barley genotypes caused by drought stress (kg fed. -1). Genotype
Results showed that WUE as affected by irrigation treatments, twenty genotypes and their interaction are presented in Table (22). Results showed highly significant different WUE value due to irrigation treatments at both seasons as well as combined. In general, the WUE means in the stressed treatment had been significantly higher than the irrigated treatment. Lower WUE with higher soil moisture status was due to proportionately more increase in evapotranspiration than the increase in seed yield (Mollah and Paul, 2011). These results indicated the different genetic background of the twenty barley genotypes.
- 70 -
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 22. Means of water use efficiency as affected by irrigation treatments and barley genotypes as well as its interaction at three growth stages in both growing seasons.
Reduction%
Water Use Efficiency (WUE)

2009/10 2010/11
1.89 2.54 0.05 -34 Barley genotypes

Means
2.33 2.63 0.15 -13

Interaction 2009/10
Irrigated Stressed
Genotype
2009/10 2010/11
2010/11
Reduction Reduction Irrigated Stressed % %

LSD 0.05
2.16 2.15 1.97 2.12 1.90 2.11 1.84 2.43 2.16 2.23 1.88 2.26 2.07 1.83 2.25 1.99 2.01 2.00 2.02 2.06
0.16
2.53 2.52 2.21 2.51 2.30 2.60 2.22 3.05 2.61 2.69 2.23 2.68 2.43 2.13 2.68 2.25 2.27 2.30 2.41 2.13
0.46
1.94 1.95 1.75 1.92 1.86 1.91 1.73 2.12 1.96 2.04 1.72 2.02 1.80 1.63 2.11 1.89 1.85 1.91 1.83 1.84 --
2.60 2.56 2.43 2.54 1.98 2.51 2.06 3.06 2.58 2.6 2.22 2.75 2.62 2.23 2.54 2.20 2.35 2.16 2.42 2.5
-34 -31 -39 -32 -6 -31 -19 -44 -32 -27 -29 -36 -46 -37 -20 -16 -27 -13 -32 -36
2.38 2.41 2.04 2.36 2.37 2.46 2.23 2.77 2.47 2.59 2.17 2.42 2.19 1.95 2.61 2.26 2.16 2.32 2.28 2.13 --
2.79 2.73 2.49 2.76 2.15 2.84 2.22 3.56 2.84 2.86 2.34 3.14 2.86 2.44 2.80 2.22 2.48 2.28 2.64 2.13
-17 -13 -22 -17 9 -15 0.4 -29 -15 -10 -8 -30 -31 -25 -7 2 -15 2 -16 0
With respect to the genotypes means, results showed highly significant differences existed between barley genotypes. Data indicated that, the L4 and L8 had good values of water use efficiency under both
- 71 -
treatments, in both seasons. This finding is confirming the fact that if the crop performance under soil water stress is acceptable, it well be better under available soil moisture condition. These results are in agreement with those reported by Kamel et al. (2008) and Ali (2009). The interaction between irrigated treatments and barley genotypes was insignificant in both growing seasons. These results indicated that the behavior of genotypes did not affected by changing environments. These results are in agreement with those reported by Refay (2010).
4.3. Simple correlation coefficients between grain yield and the other studied characteristics overall the two growing seasons: Biological yield and grain yield showed highly positive significantly correlated with most studied characters. Highly significant positive correlations were observed between days to heading and days to maturity, and significant positive correlations with grains per spike. While, highly significant negative correlations were observed between days to heading and 1000-grain weight. Highly significant positive correlations were observed between days to maturity and each of plant height, spike length, spikes number/m2, grains per spike, biological yield and grain yield. Highly significant positive correlations were observed between plant height, spikes number/m2 and all studied characters, except for water use efficiency and days to heading were not significant. The correlation coefficients showed highly significant and positive between spike length and other studied characters, except for days to heading, water use efficiency and 1000-grain weight were not significant (Table 23). These results are in agreement with the findings of Vaezi el al. (2010), Naghaii and Asgharipour (2011) and Budakli and Celik (2012).
- 72 -
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table (23). Simple correlation coefficients between grain yield and the other studied characteristics overall the two growing seasons.
Characteristic
Days to heading (1)
1
1.00
2
1.00 0.70**
10
Days to maturity (2) 0.86 ** Plant height (3) Spike length (4) Spikes number/m (5) Grains per spike (6)
2
0.22 0.37 0.28 0.49 *
1.00 1.00 1.00 0.47** 0.15** 0.80** 0.77** 0.16 1.00 -0.09 1.00 1.00 0.90** 0.62** 1.00 0.94** 1.00
0.57** 0.58**
0.57** 0.50** 0.52** 0.64** 0.45** 0.47** -0.02 0.25** 0.00
1000-grain weight (7) -0.67** Biological yield (8) Grain yield (9) 0.18 -0.17
0.61** 0.54** 0.46** 0.59** 0.58** 0.46** -0.26 0.22 0.14
0.51** 0.29** 0.53** 0.30** -0.05 0.16
Water use efficiency (10) -0.17
*: Significant at 0.05 levels of probability. **: highly Significant at 0.01 levels of probability.
4.4. Tolerance indices of 20 barley genotypes under stress and nonstress conditions: In order to select most tolerant genotypes to drought, values of
stress tolerance index (STI), yield index (YI), yield stability index (YSI), mean productivity (MP), geometrical mean productivity (GMP), yield reduction ratio (Yr) and stress susceptibility index (DSI) were calculated (Table 24).
Concerning grain yield, results showed that L4 and L8 had the heaviest grains among the other genotypes under both conditions. Also, results in Table (24) indicated that all drought tolerance indices for L4 and L8 genotypes possessed high values for MP, YSI, STI, GMP and YI and DSI less than one, and low values of Yr, revealing that these genotypes were more tolerant to water deficient. These results are in agreement with those reported by Farhat (2005), Nazari and Pakniyat (2010), Abdi et al. (2012), Khokhar el al. (2012) and Muhammad et al. (2012). Genotypes with low DSI values (less than I) can be considered drought tolerant (Bruckner & Frohberg, 1987), because they exhibit smaller yield reductions under water stress compared with normal condition than the mean of all genotypes. However, the low DSI values
- 73 -
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION may not necessarily give a good indication of drought tolerance of genotype. Low DSI values of a variety could be due to lack of yield production under normal conditions rather than an indication of its ability to tolerate water stress. Table (24). Tolerance indices of 20 barley genotypes under stress and nonstress conditions.
LSD 0.05
GYp
3739 3767 3274 3702 3666 3780 3423 4231 3831 4011 3363 3836 3444 3101 4074 3588 3461 3656 3557 3429 408.80
GYs
2462 2417 2242 2425 1889 2450 1956 3037 2481 2501 2084 2701 2507 2136 2445 2010 2203 2029 2313 2089 340.01
YSI
0.66 0.64 0.68 0.66 0.52 0.65 0.57 0.72 0.65 0.62 0.62 0.70 0.73 0.69 0.60 0.56 0.64 0.55 0.65 0.61 0.08
YI
1.06 1.04 0.97 1.05 0.81 1.06 0.84 1.31 1.07 1.08 0.90 1.16 1.08 0.92 1.05 0.87 0.95 0.87 1.00 0.90 0.14
GMP
3034 3017 2709 2996 2631 3043 2587 3585 3083 3167 2647 3219 2938 2574 3156 2685 2761 2723 2868 2677 319.84
STI
0.69 0.68 0.55 0.67 0.52 0.70 0.50 0.97 0.71 0.75 0.53 0.78 0.65 0.50 0.75 0.54 0.57 0.56 0.62 0.54 0.14
MP
3100 3092 2758 3064 2777 3115 2689 3634 3156 3256 2723 3268 2976 2619 3259 2799 2832 2842 2935 2759 317.23
Yr
0.34 0.36 0.32 0.34 0.48 0.35 0.43 0.28 0.35 0.38 0.38 0.30 0.27 0.31 0.40 0.44 0.36 0.45 0.35 0.39 0.08
DSI
0.95 1.00 0.88 0.96 1.35 0.98 1.19 0.78 0.98 1.05 1.06 0.82 0.76 0.86 1.11 1.22 1.01 1.24 0.97 1.09 0.07
Where: STI stress tolerance index, YI yield index, YSI yield stability index, MP mean productivity, GMP geometrical mean productivity, Yr yield reduction ratio, DSI stress susceptibility index. Ys grain yield under drought condition, Yp grain yield under normal condition.
Grain yield under normal GYp was highly significantly correlated with grain yields under stressed GYs conditions (Table 25). Thus, selection for MP should give positive response in both treatments. Correlation analysis between drought indices and yield components showed that grain yield under irrigated and stress conditions was positively correlated with MP, STI, GMP and YI, while, yield under stress condition was positively correlated with YSI, and negatively correlated
- 74 -
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION with Yr and DSI .Furthermore, correlation analysis between the various stress tolerant indices used in this study provides interesting observations. MP, YSI, STI, GMP and YI were positively significantly correlated between each other, as well as showing significant negative correlation with Yr and DSI. These results are in general agreement with those reported by Nazari and Pakniyat (2010), Abdi et al. (2012), Khokhar el al. (2012) and Muhammad et al. (2012). Table (25). Simple correlation coefficients (r) between grain yield under normal Yp, grain yield under stressed Ys conditions and tolerance indices overall the two growing se asons.
Indices GYp GYs YSI YI GMP STI MP Yr DSI GYp
1.00 0.68** 0.03 0.68** 0.87** 0.87** 0.92**
-0.03 -0.03
GYs
1.00 0.75** 1.00** 0.95** 0.95** 0.92**
-0.75** -0.75**
YSI
YI
GMP
STI
MP
Yr
DSI
1.00 0.75** 0.51* 0.51* 0.42

-1.00** -1.00**
1.00 0.95** 0.95** 0.91**

-0.75** -0.75**
1.00 1.00** 0.99** -0.51* -0.51*
1.00 0.99** -0.51* -0.52*
1.00 -0.42 -0.43
1.00 1.00**
1.00
*: Significant at 0.05 level of probability. **: highly Significant at 0.01 level of probability.
Highly significant variation in genotypes was observed for all characters in both stressed and unstressed conditions. This indicates that the magnitude of differences in genotypes was sufficient to select them against drought. MP, STI, GMP and YI were highly correlated with grain
yield under both conditions, suggesting that these indices were the most suitable to screen drought-tolerant genotypes. Selection depend on
a combination of indices may provide a useful criterion for improving drought tolerance of barley. This study also revealed that under stressed condition, the yield of some genotypes was significantly reduced, while the other genotypes
- 75 -
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION showed tolerance against drought, confirming the genetic variability in these germplasms. Therefore, breeders should select better genotypes based on mainly four indices (GMP, MP, STI and YI) under stressed conditions and compare results with performance under irrigated conditions by using different methods of selection. Generally, all the studied characteristics were significantly affected by water stress at both growing seasons, except for water use efficiency and total chlorophyll content. High positive correlation was found between each of the biological yield and grain and all its attributes of the number of days to maturity, plant height, spike length, number of spikes/m2, number of grains/spike, 1000-grain weight. There were significant differences for all the seven indices among the genotypes. Grain yield under normal condition (GYp) was highly significantly correlated with grain yields under stressed (GYs) conditions. Correlation analysis between drought tolerance indices and yield components showed that grain yield under irrigated condition was positively correlated with MP, STI, GMP and YI. While, yield under stress condition (GYs) was positively correlated with YSI, MP, STI, GMP and YI and negatively correlated with Yr and DSI. Genotypes were significantly different for their yield under stress and nonstress conditions . Conclussion Finally, L4 and L8 genotypes had the heaviest grains and the highest values of WUE under both conditions compared with Giza 126 (check variety), as well as possessed high values of MP, YSI, STI, GMP and YI and DSI less than one, and low values of Yr, revealing that those genotypes were more tolerant to water stress and more desirable genotypes for both stress and non-stress conditions.
- 76 -
SUMMARY
5. SUMMARY Assessment of Water Stress Tolerance in Selected Barley Genotypes

This study was carried out at Agronomy Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Tanta University. The field investigations were carried out in the Experimental Farm at Sakha Agricultural Research Station, Kafr ElSheikh Governorate, Egypt, during the two successive growing seasons of 2009/10 and 2010/11. The main objective of the present study, therefore, was to screen the twenty barley genotypes with high yield potential and stability under water stress conditions. Plant materials: Twenty barley genotypes (2 lines from ICARDA, 14 breeding lines and three local varieties i.e. Giza 121, Giza 126 and Giza 132 and Beacher Introduced from USA, named Giza118) were chosen for the study based on their reputed differences in yield performance under normal and stress conditions.
Experimental design:
To study the effects of late season drought stress on agronomic characteristics of 20 barley genotypes, two separate field experiments were conducted. The experimental design was randomized complete block design (RCBD) with four replicates. This study aimed to find drought stress tolerant genotypes. Therefore, an experiment was carried out at stressful conditions (stressed treatment) and additional experiment was performed in normal conditions (irrigated treatment). The irrigated treatment was irrigated twice after sowing in tillering and late booting stages, while, the stressed treatment was given sowing irrigation only. Sowing was done in 15th of November in both seasons.
- 77 -
SUMMARY The main results were as follows: A. Growth analysis parameters: 1. Dry matter accumulation (DM): It was significantly affected by water stress. In general, increasing irrigation increased DM. Dry matter increased slowly at the early stages of growth and then, increased rapidly with the advancement of plant age. Giza 132, L4, L5, L6 and L8 gave the highest values for DM compared to Giza 126 in the three samples. Highly significant interaction between barley genotypes and irrigation treatments was found in the three samples. Giza 132, L4 and L8 gave the highest values for DM compared to Giza 126 under both treatments in the three samples. 2. Leaf area index (LAI): Irrigated treatment had higher LAI than the stressed treatment. It reached in a certain value in the second sample and then declined with plant age in the third sample. L4, L5 and L13 in the first season and L1, L3, L4 and L13 in the second season gave the highest values for LAI compared to Giza 126 in the first sample. While in the second sample, Giza 132, L4, L5, L6, L7, L8, L12, L13 and L15 in the first season and L3, L4, L5, L6, L7, L8, L13, L15 and L16 had higher values compared to Giza 126 in the second season. Giza 132, L4, L5 and L8 gave the highest values in the third sample in both seasons. 3. Crop growth rate (CGR): The CGR means in the stressed treatment had been significantly lower than the irrigated treatment. CGR changes turned resembled at both treatments, but the irrigated treatment had superiority over that of the stressed treatment during all the stages. Giza 132, L4 and L8 had the highest values in the first growth intervals in both seasons. Most
- 78 -
SUMMARY genotypes exceeded Giza 126 in the second growth intervals, especially Giza132, L4 and L8 in first season, while L8 only had the highest value in the second one. 4. Net assimilation rate (NAR): Lower NAR was in the stressed treatment than in the irrigated treatment. The trend of changes, the NAR had a high similarity with both irrigated treatments, where it increased in the second more than the first growth intervals. In first growth intervals Giza 132, L8, L9 and L11 recorded higher values in first season, while Giza 126, Giza 132, L9 and L11 were the higher genotypes in second season. In second growth intervals all genotypes exceeded Giza 126 except L1 and L13 were lower in first season, while Beacher, Giza 121 and L9 were the higher genotypes in second season. 5. Relative growth rate (RGR): RGR had the highest value when irrigated thrice and corresponding the lowest value obtained from the stressed treatment. Beacher, L1, L3, L9, L10, L12 and L13 in first season and Beacher, L1, L3, L10 and L16 in second season had the highest values in the first growth intervals, while in the second growth intervals, all genotypes exceeded Giza 126 especially L10 and L16 in first season and L2, L10 and L16 had the highest values in second season. 6. Relative water content (RWC): The RWC means in the stressed treatment had been significantly lower than the irrigated treatment. Giza 132 and Giza 126 in first season and L2, L6 and L10 in second season gave the highest values for RWC in the first sample. However, Giza 132, L1, L2, L4, L5, L6, L10, L11, L14 and L16 exceeded Giza 126 in first season and Giza 132, L1, L2, L4 and L11 in second season gave the highest values in
- 79 -
SUMMARY the second sample, while, Giza 132 and Giza 121 in first season and Giza 132, Giza 121 and L11 in second season were exceeded Giza 126 in the third sample. 7. Total chlorophyll content: The stressed treatment resulted in higher value, compared with the irrigated treatment in the three growth stages. For mean values, Giza 121, L2, L4, L6, L8, L10, L14 and L16 in first season and Giza 121, L6, L8 and L10 in second season gave the highest values for total chlorophyll content compared to Giza 126 in the first sample. While, Giza 121, L4, L8, L12 and L15 in first season and Giza 121, L4, and L15 in second season had higher values compared to Giza 126 in second sample. Giza 132, Giza 121, L4, L8, L12, L13 and L15 in first season and Giza 132, Giza 121, L1, L2, L8 and L10 in second season gave the highest values in the third sample. 8. Days to heading: The genotypes under stress condition were earlier than irrigated condition. Beacher, L9, L12 and L15 were the earliest genotypes. While, L3 was the latest genotype, which needed longer time to reach maturity in both seasons and combined. The interaction between the irrigated treatments and barley genotypes was insignificant in both growing seasons. 9. Days to maturity: The genotypes under stress condition were earlier than irrigated condition. All genotypes were earlier than Giza126, except Giza132, L3, L8 and L10 which needed longer time to reach maturity in both seasons. The interaction between the irrigated treatments and barley genotypes was insignificant in both growing seasons.
- 80 -
SUMMARY 10. Plant height: Maximum plant height was achieved when plants were grown under the well-watered treatment compared with those plants grown under the stress treatments. Most genotypes were taller than Giza 126, especially Giza132, L3, L5, L7 and L11. While, Beacher, L10 and L15 genotypes were the shortest in both treatments and both seasons. B. yield and yield components: 1. Spikes number/m2: The severe drought stress treatment decreased spikes number compared with the well-watered treatment in both growing seasons. Giza132, Giza121, L4, L8, L10 and L13 showed superior values compared to Giza126 under the stressed treatment. 2. Spike length: Irrigated treatment had higher spike length than the stressed treatment. The reduction percentage was 10 and 6% in the first and second growing seasons, respectively. Giza132, Giza121, L6, L8, and L10 gave the highest values in both treatments. 3. Grains number per spike: The reduction percentage due to the stressed treatment was 12 and 6% in the first and the second growing seasons, respectively. Giza132, L3, L8, L9, and L10 exceeded Giza126 for grains number per spike under irrigated treatment, while, Giza132 was the highest under stressed treatment. 4. 1000-grain weight (g): The stress led to a reduction in 1000-grain weight. L7 and L15 were the heaviest weight of the other genotypes in both seasons, also most genotypes exceeded Giza126, expect Giza132, Beacher, L3, L8 and L10 were the least weight in both seasons.
- 81 -
SUMMARY 5. Biological yield: The irrigated treatment outyielded the stressed treatment. The reduction percentage was 41, 46 and 44% at first and second seasons, respectively. Giza132, L4 and L8 produced the highest values compared with Giza126. While, Beacher, L1, L10 and L12 recorded the lowest genotypes in both seasons. 6. Grain yield: As drought stress severity increased, grain yield decreased for all genotypes in both seasons. The percentage of reduction in grain yield by the severe drought stress treatment was 37 and 36 % in first and second seasons, respectively. L4 and L8 revealed the highest grain yield for two years in both treatments. On the other hand, L10, Beacher, L3 and L7 were the lowest. 7. Water use efficiency (WUE): WUE means in the stressed treatment had been significantly higher than the irrigated treatment. L4 and L8 had good values of water use efficiency under both treatments, in both seasons. C. Simple correlation coefficients between grain yield and the other studied characteristics overall the two growing seasons. Biological yield and grain yield showed highly positive significantly correlated with most studied characters. Highly significant positive correlations were observed between days to heading and days to maturity, and significant positive correlations with grains per spike. While, highly significant negative correlations were observed between days to heading and 1000-grain weight. Highly significant positive correlations were observed between days to maturity and each of plant height, spike length, spikes number/m2, grains per spike, biological yield and grain yield. Highly significant positive correlations were observed
- 82 -
SUMMARY between plant height, spikes number/m2 and all studied characters, except for water use efficiency and days to heading were not significant. The correlation coefficients showed highly significant and positive between spike length and other studied characters, except for days to heading, water use efficiency and 1000-grain weight which had not significant. D. Tolerance indices of 20 barley genotypes under stress and nonstress conditions. Results showed that all drought tolerance indices for L4 and L8 genotypes possessed high values for stress tolerance index (STI), yield index (YI), yield stability index (YSI), mean productivity (MP) and geometrical mean productivity (GMP) and stress susceptibility index (DSI) less than one, and low values of yield reduction ratio (Yr), revealing that these genotypes were more tolerant to water deficient. Grain yield under normal Yp was highly significantly correlated with grain yields under stressed Ys conditions. Correlation analysis between drought indices and yield components showed that grain yield under irrigated was positively correlated with MP, STI, GMP and YI, while, grain yields under stressed Ys conditions was positively correlated with MP, YSI, STI, GMP and YI. While, it was negatively correlated with Yr and DSI. Generally, all studied characteristics were significantly affected by water stress at both growing seasons, except for water use efficiency and total chlorophyll content. High positive correlation was found between each of the biological and grain yield and yield attributes of the number of days to maturity, plant height, spike length, number of spikes/m2, number of grains/spike, 1000-grain weight. There were significant differences for all the seven indices among the genotypes. Grain yield
- 83 -
SUMMARY under normal condition (GYp) was highly significantly correlated with grain yield under stressed (GYs) condition. Correlation analysis between drought tolerance indices and yield components showed that grain yield under irrigated condition was positively correlated with MP, STI, GMP and YI. While, grain yield under stress condition (GYs) was positively correlated with YSI, MP, STI, GMP and YI and negatively correlated with Yr and DSI. Genotypes were significantly different for their yield under stress and non-stress conditions . Finally, both L4 and L8 genotypes had the heaviest grains and highest values of WUE under both conditions compared with Giza 126 (check variety), as well as possessed high values of MP, YSI, STI, GMP and YI and DSI less than one, and low values of Yr, revealing that these genotypes were more tolerant to water stress and more desirable genotypes for both stress and non-stress conditions.
- 84 -
References 6-REFERENCES
Abd El-Ati, A.A. and K.I. Zaki (2006). Productivity of some wheat cultivars in calcareous soils under organic farming and rainfed conditions with special reference to plant diseases. J. Agric. Sci. Mansoura Univ., 31(4):1875-1889. Abd El-Hamid, E.A.M.A. (2009). Previous crop effects on water stress tolerance of some wheat cultivars and lines. Ph.D. Thesis. Fac. Agric. Tanta Univ. Egypt. Abd El-Wahab, S. A. (2002). Wheat response to Ascorbic Acid under different soil water stress. J. Agric. Mansoura Univ., 27 (6): 4205-4219. Abdi, H.; E. Azizov; M.R. Bihamta; R. Chogan and K. N. Aghdam (2012 ). Assessment and determination of the most suitable drought resistance index for figures and advanced lines of bread wheat. International J. of Agric. Sci.,2 (1): 78-87. Abo-Warda, A.M.A. (2002). Evaluation of some wheat genotypes under different irrigation treatment and nitrogen levels in sandy soil. Menufiya J. Agric. Res., 27(2):181-196. Ahmad, R.; J.C. Stark; A. Tanveer and T. Mustafa (1999). Yield potential and stability indices as methods to evaluate spring wheat genotypes under drought. Agric. Sci., 4(2): 5359. Alam, M.Z.; M.S. Rahman; M.E. Hossain; M.A.K. Azad and M.R.H. Khan (2003). Response of irrigation frequencies and different doses of N fertilization on the growth and 85
References
yield of wheat. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, 6 (8):732 734. Ali, A. A. (2009). Yield potential of two Barely genotypes grown under water stress of arid ecosystem of Saudi Arabia. Department of Plant Production, Faculty of Food and Agric., Science, King Saud Univ., P.O. Box 2460, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia. Ali, R. A.; A. Soleymani and M.H. Shahrajabian (2012). Changes in morphological traits, leaf and soil RWC and length of growth and development stages of four cultivars of barley in restricted irrigation. Int. J. Agric. Crop Sci., 4 (7): 368371. Amer, Kh. A. (2010). Inheritance of drought tolerance in some barley genotypes. Egypt. J. Agric., Res., 88(1):85-102. Artlip, T. S. and M. E. Wisniewski (2002). Induction of Proteins in Response to Biotic and Abiotic Stresses, Pp: 667. In Pessarakli, M. (ed.). Handbook of Plant and Crop Physiology 2nd ed. Marcel Dekker, Inc., NewYork , USA. Bagheri, A. and H. HS. Abad (2007). Effect of drought and salt stresses on yield, yield components, and ion content of hull-less barley (Hordeum sativum, L.). J. of new Agric. Sci., 3(7):1-15. Barrs H.D. (1968). Determination of water deficit in plant tissues. In: Kozlouski T.T. (ed), Water deficits and Plant Growth. Academic press New-Delhi, 1: 235-268.
86
References
Bartlett, M. S. (1937). Properties of sufficiency and statistical tests. Proceedings of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A 160, 268282. Bayoumi, T. Y. (2004). Diallel cross analysis for bread wheat under stress and normal irrigation treatments. Zagazig J. Agric. Res., 31 (2): 435-455. Blum, A. (1979). Genetic improvement of drought resistance in crop plants. A case for sorghum. pp: 495545. In: H. Hussell and R.C. Staples (ed.). Stress Physiology in Crop Plants. Wiley Interscience, New York. Bruckner, P.L. and R.C. Frohberg (1987). Stress tolerance and adaptation in spring wheat. Crop Sci., 27: 316. Budakli, C. E. and N. Celik (2012). Correlation and path coefficient analysis of grain yield and yield components in two-rowed of barley (Hordeum vulgare convar. distichon) varieties. Not. Sci. Biol. 4(2):128 - 131. Ceccarelli, S. (1987). Yield potential and drought tolerance of segregating population of barley in contrasting
environments. Euphetica, 36: 265-273. Choukan, R.; T. Taherkhani; M.R. Ghannadha and M. Khodarahmi (2006). Evaluation of drought tolerance in grain maize inbred lines using drought tolerance indices. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 8(1): 79-89. Dutt, S. K. (1988). Soil salinity effects on the process of grain filling in barley (Hordeum vulgare, L.) varieties. Indian J. of plant physiol., 31(2): 222-227. 87
References
El-Afandy, K.H.T. (2006). Effect of sowing methods and irrigation intervals on some wheat varieties grown under saline conditions at South Sinai. J. Agric. Sci. Mansoura Univ., 31(2):573-586. El-Banna, M.N. M.; A.A. Nasser; M.A. Moustafa and S.H. AbdAllah (2002). Evaluation of some wheat genotypes under drought conditions in Nubaria Region. J. Adv. Agric. Res. Alex. Univ., 7(2):349-366. El-Ganbeehy, M.M. (2001). Productive of wheat and barley under supplementary irrigation in newly reclaimed land of North West Cost of Egypt. J. Adv. Agric. Res., 6(4):797-808. EL-Hawary, M. A. (2000). Evaluation of some wheat varieties under water deficit conditions. Zagazig J.Agric,Res.,27(4): 819830. El-Naggar, A.A.E.A. (2010). Genetical studies on drought tolerance of barley. M.Sc. Thesis, Fac. of Agric., Tanta Univ., Egypt. Farhat, W.Z.E. (2005). Genetical studies on drought tolerance in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L). M.Sc. Thesis, Tanta Univ., Egypt. Fernandez, G.C.J. (1992). Effective selection criteria for assessing plant stress tolerance. In: Proceedings of on the Symposium Taiwan, August, 25: 257-270. Finlay, K.W. (1968). The significance of adaptation in wheat breeding. pp: 742754. In: Proc. 3rd Int. Wheat Genetics
88
References
Symp., 5-9 August, Australian Academy of Sciences, Canberra, A.C.T. Finlay, K.W. and G.N. Wilkinson (1963). The analysis of adaptation in plant breeding programmes. Aust. J. Agric. Res., 14: 742754. Fisher, R.A. and R. Maurer (1978). Drought resistance in spring wheat cultivars I. Grain yield responses. Aust. J. Agric. Res.,29:897-912. Gavuzzi, P.; F. Rizza; M. Palumbo; R.G. Campaline; G.L. Ricciardi and B. Borghi (1997). Evaluation of field and laboratory predictors of drought and heat tolerance in winter cereals. Can. J. Plant Sci., 77: 523-531. Golestani, S. A. and M. T. Assad (1998). Evaluation of four screening techniques for drought resistance and their relationship to yield reduction ratio in wheat. Euphytica, 103: 293-299. Hassaan, R.K. (2003). Effect of drought stress on yield and yield components of some wheat and triticale genotypes. Annals Agric. Sci., Ain Shams Univ., Egypt, 48(1):117-129. Hefnawy, F.A. and M.F. Wahba (2003). Effect of water stress in late growth stages of some wheat cultivars. J. Agric. Sci., Mansoura Univ., 28(2):729-745. Hossain, A.B.S.; A.G. Sears; T.S. Cox and G.M. Paulsen (1990). Desiccation tolerance and its relationship to assimilate partitioning in winter wheat. Crop Sci., 30: 622-627. Jazy, H.D.; M.R.K. Poor; H.H.S. Abad and A. Soleimani (2007). Growth indices of winter wheat as affected by irrigation 89
References
regimes under Iran conditions. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, 10 (24): 4495-4499. Kamel, N.; T. Ines; M.M. Mohamed and B.M Netij (2008). Soil salinity barley production under full and deficit irrigation with saline water in arid conditions of Southern Tunisia. Research Journal of Agronomy 2(3):90-95, ISSN:18159354. Katta, Y.S., A.A. Eid., M.S. Abd El-Aty and Sally, M. EL-Wakeel (2009). Studies on tolerance of some hulless barley crosses to drought. 6th International Plant Breeding Conference, Ismalia, Egypt. May 3-5. Kearsey, M. and H. Pooni (1996). The genetical analysis of quantitative traits. Chapman and Hall. London. U.K. Khalil, F.A.F.; A.M. Tammam; I.A. Amin and K.A. Mhamed (2006). Scheduling irrigation for some wheat cultivars under Upper Egypt conditions. J. Agric. Sci. Mansoura Univ., 31(1):561-572. Khayatnezhad, M.; M. Zaefizadeh; R. Gholamin; S. J. Somarin and R. Z. Mahmoodabad (2010). Study of morphological traits of wheat cultivars through factor analysis. Am-Euras. J. Agric. & Environ. Sci., 9 (5): 460-464. Kheiralla, K.A.; M.A. El-Morshidy; M.H. Motawea and A.A. Saied (2004). Performance and stability of some wheat genotypes under normal water stress conditions. Assiut J. Agric. Res., 35(2): 74-94 90
References
Khokhar, M. I.; J. A. Teixeira da Silva and H. Spiertz (2012). Evaluation of barley genotypes for yielding ability and drought tolerance under irrigated and water-stressed conditions. American-Eurasian J. Agric. and Environ. Sci., 12 (3): 287-292. Kirkpatrick, A.; L. Browning; J. W. Bauder; R. Waskom; M. Neibauer and G. Cardon (2006). Irrigating with limited water supplies: a practical guide to choosing crops wellsuited to limited irrigation. Montana State University, Extension water quality program. Bozeman. Klar,A. and A. Santos (2008). Influence of water stress on barley cultivars. Agricultural Engineering Department, FCAUnesp, SP, Brazil. 23-25 June, 2008. P-179. 3. Lin, C.S., M.R. Binns, L.P. Lefkovitch (1986). Stability analysis: where do we stand. Crop Sci, 26: 894-900. Mahgoub, H.S. and M.A. Sayed (2001). Response of two wheat cultivars to irrigation amount and nitrogen level in sand soil. J. Agric. Sci. Mansoura Univ., 26 (4):1863-1873. Mahmoud, Badeaa, A. M. (2006). Genetic evaluation of some barley traits in crosses under saline and non-saline conditions. M. Sc. Thesis Fac., Agric., Kafr El-Sheikh, Tanta Univ., Egypt. Mamnouie, E.; R.F. Ghazvini; M. Esfahany and B. Nakhoda (2006). The effects of water deficit on crop yield and the
91
References
physiological characteristics of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) varieties. J. Agric. Sci. Technol., 8: 211-219. Menshawy, A.M. (2000). Genetical studies on spring wheat. Ph.D. Thesis, Fac. Agric, Zagazig Univ., Egypt. Menshawy, A.M.M.; A.A. El-Hag and A. Soaad El-Sayed (2006). Evaluation of some agronomic and quality traits for some wheat cultivars under different irrigation treatments. The First Crops Res. Inst. Conference, 22-24 Aug., (2006) Giza, Egypt, 294-310. Michael, A.M. (1978). Irrigation: Theory and Practice. Vikas Publishing House, New Delhi, India, p.279. Mohamed, Magda, E. A. (2004). Genetical analysis and evaluation of drought tolerance trait under different conditions in wheat (Triticum aestivum L). Ph. D. Thesis, Fac., Agric., Kafr El-Sheikh,Tanta Univ., Egypt. Mohammed, I A. E. I. (2001). Breeding studies on drought tolerance in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L). M. Sc. Thesis, Fac., Agric., Zagazig Univ., Egypt. Mollah M.S.I. and N. K. Paul (2008). Growth attributes of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) in relation to soil moisture regimes and NPK fertilizers. J. Bio-Sci. 16: 19-24. Mollah, M. S. I. and N. K. Paul (2011). Responses of irrigation and fertilizers on the growth and yield of (Hordeum vulgare L.) Bangladesh J. Sci. Ind. Res., 46(3): 369-374.
92
References
Moursi, A.M. (2003). Performance of grain yield for some wheat genotypes under stress by chemical desiccation. Ph. D. Thesis, Fac., Agric., Zagazig Univ., Egypt . Moussa, A.M. and H.H. Abdel-Maksoud (2004). Effect of soil moisture regime on yield and its components and water use efficiency for some wheat cultivars. Annals Agric. Sci., Ain Shams Univ., 49(2):515-530. Mugabe, F.T. and E.Z. Nyakatawa (2000). Effect of deficit irrigation on wheat and opportunities of growing wheat on residual soil in Southeast Zimbabwe. Agriculture water management 46:111-119. Muhammad, I. K.; J. A. T. Da Silva and S. Huub (2012) . Evaluation of barley genotypes for yielding ability and drought tolerance under irrigated and water-stressed conditions. American-Eurasian J. Agric. & Environ. Sci., (3): 287-292. Nabipour, A. R.; S. B. Yazdi; A.A. Zali and K. Poustini (2002). Effects of morphological traits and their relations to stress susceptibility index in several wheat genotypes. BIABAN. 7: 31-47. Naghaii, V. and M. R. Asgharipour (2011). Difference in drought stress responses of 20 barley genotypes with contrasting drought tolerance during grain filling. Adv. Environ. Biol., 5(9): 3042-3049. Nazari, L. and H. Pakniyat (2010). Assessment of drought tolerance in barley genotypes. J. Applied Sci., 10(2):151-156.
93
References
Noaman, M.M. (2008). Barley development in Egypt. Proceedings of the 10th International Barley Genetics Symposium., Alexandria, Egypt, pp:3-15. Passioura, J.B. (1983). Roots and drought resistance. Agric. Water Manag., 7: 265-280. Pinter, Jr. P.J.; G. Zipoli; R.J. Reginato; R.D. Jackson and S.B. Idso (1990). Canopy temperature as an indicator of differential water use and yield performance among wheat cultivars. Agric. Water Manag., 18: 3548. Radford, P. J. (1967). Growth analysis formulae, their use and a buse. Crop Sci. 7 (3): 171-175. Rama Rao, N. (1986). Potassium requirements for growth and its related processes determined by plant analysis in wheat. Plant soil, 96:125.-131. Rana, M.; A. J. Richard and L. Andre (2006). Approaches to increasing the salt tolerance of wheat and other cereals. Journal of Experimental Botany, March 1: 1 -19. Refay, Y.A. (2010). Relative influence of water irrigation improving productivity of some barley genotypes under low rainfall conditions of Saudi Arabia. American-Eurasian J. Agric. and Environ. Sci., 7(3):320-326. Sadek, IM. (2000). Evaluation of some wheat genotypes under two N-fertilization and irrigation levels in sandy soil. J. Agric. Sci. Mansoura Univ., 25(10):6597-6610. Samarah, N. H.; A. M. Alqudah; J. A. Amayreh and G. M. McAndrews (2009). The Effect of late-terminal drought 94
References
stress on yield components of four barley cultivars. J. Agronomy and Crop Science, 195(6): 427- 441. Santos, A. B. A.; A. E. Klar and C. J. Jadoski (2008). Physiological parameters in barley cultivars under water stress. Departamento de Engenharia Rural, Faculdade de Ciencias Agrono, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Botucatu, SP, Brazil. IRRIGA. 2008. 13(4): 438-448. Shahen, Alaa M.E.A. (2005). Effect of some agricultural treatments on barley yield and its technological characters. M.Sc. Thesis Fac., Agric., Kafr El-Sheikh, Tanta Univ., Egypt. Smith, E.L. (1982). Heat and drought tolerant wheats of the future. pp: 141147. In: Proc. of the National Wheat Res. Conf. USA-ARS, Beltville, Maryland. Snedecor, G.W. and W. G. Cochran (1967). Statistical
Methods.6thed., lowa state Univ. press, Ames, lowa, USA. Sojka, R.E.; L.H. Stolzy and R.A. Fischer (1981). Seasonal drought response of selected wheat cultivars. Agron. J., 73: 838 845. Soliman, M.A.M.; I. Kh. Abbas and s. El-Khatieb (2011). Statistical evaluation of irrigation optimization on barley crop yield and water use efficiency. International Journal of Academic Research (1): 3720-726. Sorin, C.I.; M.a. Emilian C.I. Adriana; V.E. Giancarla and C. H. Sabin (2008). Evaluation of drought tolerance in winter barley using different screening techniques. Horticulture Faculty, Banats University of Agricultural Sciences
95
References
Timioara, Calea Aradului 119, 300645 Timisoara, Romania. Spitters, C.J.T. and T. Kramer (1985). Changes in relative growth rate with plant ontogeny in spring wheat genotypes grown as isolated plants. Euphytica, 34(3):833-847. Szira, F.; A.F. Balint; A. Borner and G. Galiba (2008). Evaluation of drought-related traits and screening methods at different developmental stages in spring barley. J. Agron. and Crop Sci. 194(5): 334342. Tarrad, A.M.; M.A. Megahed and F.A. Abdo (2002). Effect of irrigation intervals on some physiological and yield traits of barley under sprinkler irrigation system. Zagazig Journal of Agricultural Research, 29 (3): 877-890. Tawfelis, M.B.; S.A. Aly and M.M. Mossoud (2001). Screening wheat genotypes under reduced irrigation at specific growth stages in Upper Egypt. J. Agric. Sci. Mansoura Univ., 26(2):629-643. Vaezi, B.; V. Bavei and B. Shiran (2010). Screening of barley genotypes for drought tolerance by agro-physiological traits in field condition. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 5(9): 881-892. Watson, D.J. (1952). The physiological basis of variation in yield. Annals of Botany, 4: 101-145. Zare, M.; M. Hashem Azizi and F. Bazrafshan (2011). Effect of drought stress on some agronomic traits in ten barley (Hordeum vulgar, L) cultivars. Tech. J. Engin. & App. Sci., 1 (3): 57-62.
96

- 0211/0212 0212/0229 -: * . -: ( , 106 101 130 Beacher )111 . : , -: ( ) ( ) . . . :
: :
: . . 130 1 6 5 4 -1 -
106 . .
130 1 4 106
.
: LAI . LAI . 13 5 4 13 4 3 1 LAI 106 , 130 15 13 10 1 7 6 5 4 4 3 15 13 1 7 6 5 106 . 130 1 5 4 . : . 130 1 4 106 130 1 4 1 . 1 4 .106 : . . 130 11 9 1 106 130 11 9 . 106 13 1 Beacher 101 9 .
-0 -

: . Beacher 13 10 12 9 3 1 Beacher 16 12 3 1 . 106 16 12 16 12 0 . : . 130 106 12 6 0 130 16 14 11 12 6 5 3 0 1 11 4 0 1 106 . 130 101 130 101 11 . : . 101 16 1 6 4 0 101 12 1 6 101 15 10 1 4 101 15 4 106 . 130 101 15 13 10 1 4 130 101 12 1 0 1 . : , . Beacher 15 10 9 , 3 . .
-3 -

: , . 106 130 12 1 3 . . : . 106 130 7 5 3 .11 Beacher 15 12 . : : : , %6 12 , . 130 101 12 1 6 . / : 2 . 130 101 1 4 13 12 106 . : % 9 10 . 130 12 9 1 3 106 , 130 . : . 106 130 Beacher 12 1 3 . : % 44 41 . 130 1 4 106
-4 -

Beacher 10 12 1 . : , % 36 37 . 1 4 Beacher 12 7 3 . : . . . ( ) , . , . , , , , , . : : 1 4 . . . MP .YI GMP STI YI GMP STI YSI MP . DSI Yr -5 -

. , , , , , . . , (- MP )YI - STI -GMP ( (YI - STI - YSI - MP GMP . DSI Yr 1 4 (106 ) , ( )YI MP- GMP - STI YSI DSI .Yr .
-6 -
( MPYSI YI STI ) DSI Yr GMP .9000/9000 9000/9002 . , . . (- MP )YI - STI - GMP ( ( YSI -YI -STI -MP-GMP Yr . DSI 4 8 (091 ) (- STI YSI )YI MP- GMP DSI .Yr .
APPROVAL SHEET
:

:
() - 2003 () 2009
( )
:
..................................................................................................
/ /
.
..................................................................... ............................
- - - .
..................................................................................
- - .
.........................................................................................
/
-
- .
-
2012 / /

() - 2003 () 2009

( )
1434 2013

() - 2003 () 2009 ( )
:
. /
-
/
- - .
/
-
1434 2013

رسالة السيد السيد الشاوى

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

رسالة السيد السيد الشاوى

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Tanta University Faculty of Agriculture Department of Agronomy

Assessment of Water Stress Tolerance in Selected Barley Genotypes

El-Sayed El-Sayed Abd-Allah EL-Shawy

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements for the Degree of

Agriculture sciences (Agronomy)

1434 A.H 2013 A.D

Tanta University Faculty of Agriculture Department of Agronomy

Assessment of Water Stress Tolerance in Selected Barley Genotypes

El-Sayed El-Sayed Abd-Allah EL-Shawy

Dr. Amgad Abd El-Ghaffar El-Gammaal

Assessment of Water Stress Tolerance in Selected Barley Genotypes

BY: El-Sayed El-Sayed Abd-Allah EL-Shawy

For: the Degree of Ph.D. in (Agronomy)

The dissertation work has been assessed and approved by:

Prof. Dr. Ramdan Aly El-Refaey ......

Prof. Dr. El-Sayed Hamid El-Seidy .....

Prof. Dr. Khairy Abdel-Aziz Amer ....

Assessment of Water Stress Tolerance in Selected Barley Genotypes

2.2. Effect of water stress conditions on barley agronomic traits:

2.3. Drought susceptibility indices:

2.4. Interaction effect:

MATERIALS AND METHODS

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

Growth Season 2009/10

3.2. Data recorded:

Where FW = fresh weight of leaf. DW = dry weight TW = full turgor.

MATERIALS AND METHODS 3-Water use efficiency (WUE): =

(Hossain et al., 1990). (Fernandez, 1992).

2- Stress tolerance index

3- Geometrical mean productivity (GMP) (Yp Ys ) 0.5 (Fernandez,1992). 4- Yield index

(Gavuzzi et al., 1997; Lin et al., 1986).

5- Yield stability index (YSI)

(Bouslama and Schapaugh, 1984).

MATERIALS AND METHODS 6- Yield reduction ratio

(Golestani and Assad, 1998).

(Choukan et al., 2006)

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4-RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

2009/10 2010/11 Main effect of irrigation treatments

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Dry matter accumulation (DM)

Sample 1 (45 days) 2009/10 2010/11

Sample 2 (65 days) 2009/10 2010/11

Sample 3 (85 days) 2009/10 2010/11

Giza 126 Giza 132 Beacher Giza 121 L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L 10 L 11 L 12 L 13 L 14 L 15 L 16 LSD 0.05

2009/10 2010/11 Main effect of irrigation treatments

7.93 7.70 0.04 3

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Leaf area index ( LAI)

Sample 3 (85 days) 2009/10

2009/10 2010/11 Main effect of irrigation treatments

235 205 80.2 13

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Crop growth rate (CGR)

CGR 1 (45-65 days)

CGR 2 (65-85 days)

Giza 126 Giza 132 Beacher Giza 121 L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L 10 L 11 L 12 L 13 L 14 L 15 L 16 LSD0.05

2009/10 2010/11 Main effect of irrigation treatments

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Net assimilation rate (NAR)

Giza 126 Giza 132 Beacher Giza 121 L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L 10 L 11 L 12 L 13 L 14 L 15 L 16 LSD0.05

2009/10 Main effect of irrigation treatments

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

0.57 0.50 0.52 0.64 0.45 0.47 -0.02 0.25** 0.00

0.61 0.54 0.46 0.59 0.58 0.46 -0.26 0.22 0.14

0.51 0.29 0.53 0.30 -0.05 0.16

1.00 0.95 0.95 0.91**

1.00 1.00 0.99 -0.51* -0.51*