Mohsen Shahrokhi 1 and Saeed Khavari Khorasani 2

1. MohsenShahrokhi1 and SaeedKhavariKhorasani2 • 1.MSc., Science and Research Branch of Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran. 2. Assistant Professor, Seed and Plant Improvement Division, (SPII) Khorasan Razavi Agriculture and Natural Resourcel Research Center, Mashhad, IRAN. P.O.Box: 91735-488 *Author for correspondence: M.Shahrokhi1366@yahoo.com Introduction Comparison between Saline Condition and Normal Condition:A Case Study of Yield and Yield Component on Corn (Zeamays L.) Generations Salinityis a significantlimiting factor in the agricultural productivity(Hasegawa et al., 1986). Approximately, 7 % of the world’s land area, 20 % of the world’s cultivated land, and nearly half of the irrigated land is affected with high salt contents (Szabolcs, 1994; Zhu, 2001). The agricultural areas affected by salt, need amendment and determination of the most suitable plant Species, which are able to grow in these areas. Maize (ZeamaysL.) is moderately sensitive to salinity and effects of salinity are more obvious in arid and semiaridregions where limited rainfall, high evapotranspiration, and high temperature associated with poor water and soil management practices are the major contributing factors (AzevedoNetoet al., 2006). In addition, distribution of salinity and deserts of Iran shows that more than 18 millions ha of soils are affected (Koochaki, 2007). In maize, Yield decrease under increasing soil salinity is: 0% at ECe 1.7 mmhos/cm, 10% at 2.5, 25% at 3.8, 50% at 5.9 and 100% at ECe 10 mmhos/cm (FAO, 2011). Fig 1: Means comparison of forage yield in normal and saline fields -2010 Method In this study, we used generations (P1, P2, F1, F2, BC1 and BC2) of two hybrids KSC 400 and KSC 704 to show the difference in morphological traits, yield, and some yield components.Generationsin this research were studied in two separate Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) field experiments:1)KhorasanRazavi Agriculture and Natural Resourcesl Research Center, Mashhad, IRAN with normal conditions and2)salin condition(EC of saturated paste 6.0 dsm-1) Abbasabad-station(59◦38'N, 36◦16'E), Mashhad, Iran on 2009 with 3 replications in each area. Each genotypes was planted in 4 rows with 3 m length and 0.75m between rows and 17.5cm distance between each plant with density 75500 plant/ha.The major evaluated traits were forage yield, ear/biomass weight ratio, plant height, ear high, leaves number, up ear leaves number, days to silk and days to anthesis. Table 1: means comparison of traits in normal(1) and salin(2) fields Result The results showed significant differences among generations in some of traits like forage yield, biomass and ear/biomass weight ratio, plant height, ear height and leaves number. In field 1, forage Yield means comparison, showed that the highest and lowest yield belongs to BC1 KSC704 (88.106 ton/ha) and K1263 (35.795 ton/ha) and results in field 2 showed that the highest and lowest forage yields are for BC1 KSC704 (60.734 ton/ha) and B73(11.287 ton/ha). Furthermore, Heritability of forage yield and ear/biomass weight ratio were 70 and 60 percent in region 1, and 79 and 83 percent in region 2. Results in multiple analysis of variation showed that generation F2 KSC704 had the highest means in plant and ear height traits. Correlation between traits showed that this factor between yield and plant height is 82 percent in field 1 and in field 2 it was 83 percent. Regression between traits and forage yield resulted that in normal condition, the effect of plant height on yield, was 70 percent, and in saline condition it was 68 percent. Heterosis rate for forage yield trait of F1 KSC400 with mean of parents, was 71 and 103 percent in normal and saline condition and this factor for F1 KSC704 was 40 and 182 percent in normal and saline conditions. Table 2: heritability of traits in normal and saline conditions Discussion it is considered that the variety ’BC1 KSC704’ has reached better results in forage yield and plant fresh weight in salt stress conditions. Also it can be recommended to farmers as the best. References: Khavarikhorasani, S., 2008. Screening of Salt Tolerant Grain Maize (Zeamays L.) Genotypes Under Saline Conditions. The 10th Asian regional Maize Workshop, Cuevas L.C. (2003). Understanding Salt Tolerance in Corn.Official Quarterly Publication of Burean of Agricultureal Research. www.bar.gov.ph. Hassan ZzadehMoghaddam., H. 2006. Effect of planting methods and plant density on forage and grain yield of corn varieties in saline condition.Final reports of khorasanRazavi Agricultural and Natural Resources Research Center, Mashhad,Iran. Hoffman ,G.J., E.V Mass,.T.L.Prichard, J.L.meyer,R.Roberts 1983. Salt toleance of corn in the Sacramento –Sanjoaquin delta of california.Irrigation science 4 :1,31-44. NuranÇiçek*, HüsnüÇakirlar 2002. The effect of salinity on some physiological parameters in two maize cultivars. TayyabaKhatoon, Khalid Hussain, Abdul Majeed, Khalid Nawaz and M. FarrukhNisar 2010. Morphological Variations in Maize (ZeamaysL.) Under Different Levels of Nacl at Germinating Stage