Agriculture and forestry

Mazur Viktor Anatoliyovych – Candidate of Agricultural Sciences, Associate Professor of the Plant Growing, Breeding and Bioenergetic Cultures Department, Rector of the Vinnytsia National Agrarian University (21008, Vinnytsia, Soniachna Str. 3).

High resistance to mosaic virus has provided classes: Sprint – 90,8%, the Tower – 90,6%, Relay – 87,2%, Malvina – 87,0%, kobza – 86,1%, Hutoryanka – 85.6 per cent. Higher resistance to mosaic virus lesion was characterized by viscoplastic varieties whose coefficient of plasticity was greater than one: Sprint, Tower, Hutoryanka, Relay, and varieties whose reaction to the changing agricultural conditions of the cultivation were more conservative kobza and Malvina. Higher gomeostaticeski provided varieties that showed high resistance to defeat viral mosaic: Sprint – 21,4, Tower – 20,2, kobza – 23.7 and Malvina is 25.6.

Highly resistant to defeat by Fusarium were characterized by grade: Diona – 90,6 %, Gali – 90,6%, Malvina – of 85.1%. Among these soybean varieties Diona and Gali reacted to highly plastic, and Malvina with the conservative reaction to the change in the hydrothermal regime. In addition, these varieties provided the highest gomeostaticeski: Diona – 15,8, Gali – 15,3, Malvina and 15.3, as the coefficients of agronomic stability, which varied from to 94.1 to 94.3%.

1.Luchna I. S., Petrenkova V. P. (2010). Uspadkuvannya F1 ta F2  gibrydamy kvasoli stijkosti do fuzariozu ta okremyx elementiv prouktyvnosti [Inheritance F1 and F2 hybrids of beans resistant to fusariosis and individual elements of performance]. Selekciya i nasinnycztvo – Selection and seed production. Issue. 98. 172-181 [In Ukraine].

2.Babych A. O. (1993). Suchasne vyrobnycztvo i vykorystannya soyi [Modern production and use of soy].  K.: Urozhaj [In Ukraine].

3.Ivanyuk S.V., Shkatula Yu.M. (2013). Fitopatologichna ocinka sortozrazkiv soyi v umovax Pravoberezhnogo Lisostepu Ukrayiny [Phytopathological evaluation of soybean varieties in the conditions of the Right Bank Forest-steppe of Ukraine]. Selekciya i nasinnycztvo – Selection and seed production.  Issue. 103.  255-260 [In Ukraine].

4.Shyrokyj unyfycyrovannыj klassyfkator SЭV y mezhdunarodnыj klassyfykator SЭV roda Glycine L. (1990).  [Wide unified classifier of the CMEA and the international classifier of the CMEA of the genus Glycine L.] [in Russian].

5.Eberhart S.A., Russel W.A. (1966). Stability parameters for comparing varieties. Crop Sci. 1966. V. 6. №1. R. 34-40. [in United States].

6.Pakudyn V. Z., Lopatyna L. M. (1984). Otsenka эkolohycheskoi plastychnosty y stabylnosty sortov selskokhoziaistvennыkh kultur. [Assessment of ecological plasticity and stability of varieties of agricultural crops]. Selskokhoziaistvennaia  byolohyia – Agricultural Biology. 4. 109-112 [in Russian].

7.Guzhov Yu. A. (1987). Modyfykacyonnaya yzmenchyvost kolychestvennыx pryznakov u samoopыlёnnыx lynyj y  gybrydov kukuruzы [Modification variability of quantitative traits in self-pollinated maize lines and hybrids]. Moskva: Reports of the Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Issue. 7.  3-5. [in Russian].

8.Xangyldyn V. V., Lytvynenko N. A. (1981). Gomeostatychnost y adaptyvnost sortov ozymoj pshenyczы [Homeostaticity and adaptability of winter wheat varieties]. Nauchn.-texn. byul. VSGY – Scientific-tech. bullet WSSI. Issue. 39. 8-14. [in Russian].