Purpose. Reveal the features of the formation of a quali­ty indicator complex in winter bread wheat depending on the growing seasons, preceding crops and sowing dates, as well as differentiate and identify genotypes with high and stable levels of manifestation.Methods. Field, laboratory, statistical.Results. A different share of the influence of the year conditions, the preceding crop, the sowing date and their interactions on the quality indicators of some varie­ties was determined. A different reaction of varieties in terms of quality indicators, depending on the investigated factors was revealed. The variation was very low for test weight, water absorption ability of flour, crumb porosity. Strong variation was observed for flour strength after sunflower and soybean as preceding crops, alveograph configuration ratio after sunflower and soybean, index of elasticity dough after corn, valorimetric value after mustard, dough dilution degree after green manure, sunflower, corn and especially after mustard and soybeans. The varieties, which on average for 2016/17–2018/19 reliably exceeded the standard both in individual indicators and in general in terms of physical indicators of grain and flour quality and dough rheological properties. GYT biplot analysis identified the genotypes ‘MIP Vidznaka’ and ‘MIP Assol’ with a more optimal combination of increased yield and a complex of quality indicators in terms of different years, preceding crops and sowing dates. Some varieties, namely, ‘Estafeta myronivs’ka’, ‘Trudiv­nytsia myronivs’ka’, ‘MIP Valensiia’, ‘MIP Yuvileina’, ‘Balada myronivs’ka’, ‘Vezha myronivs’ka’ were inferior to them, but were significantly superior the others.Conclusions. The selected by quality indicators varieties as genetic sources can be used in breeding process. A more stable level of yield and quality indicators at different sowing dates after different preceding crops should be expected for growing varieties ‘MIP Vidznaka’, ‘MIP Assol’, as well as ‘Estafeta myronivs’ka’, ‘Trudivnytsia myronivs’ka’, ‘MIP Valensiia’, ‘MIP Yuvileina’, ‘Balada myronivs’ka’, ‘Vezha myronivs’ka’. The peculiarities obtained in the research should be taken into account when evaluating and differentiating genotypes in breeding process, as well as developing basic elements of technology for growing the varieties of winter bread wheat.

Мета. Визначити кореляційні зв’язки між урожайністю та показниками якості зерна сортів і селекційних ліній пшениці м’якої озимої. Методи. Дослідження проводили в умовах Миронівського інституту пшениці імені В. М. Ремесла НААН України (МІП) впродовж 2019/20–2021/22 рр. Оцінювали десять нових сортів і чотири селекційні лінії пшениці м’якої озимої миронівської селекції. Показники якості зерна визначали згідно із загальноприйнятими методами в лабораторії якості зерна МІП. Для встановлення кореляційних зв’язків розраховували коефіцієнти кореляції (r) Пірсона. Результати. Між урожайністю та показниками якості зерна пшениці м’якої озимої встановлено різні за напрямом та силою кореляційні зв’язки ( 0,32 < r < 0,61). Зокрема, в роки досліджень одержано вірогідні прямі коефіцієнти кореляції між урожайністю та показником маси 1000 зерен (r = 0,17–0,46). Також за певних гідротермічних умов вирощування виявлено вірогідну прямолінійну залежність (r = 0,13–0,61) урожайності від водопоглинальної здатності борошна, натури, склоподібності зерна, вмісту білка та клейковини. Виділено сорти й селекційні лінії пшениці м’якої озимої, які під час досліджень мали стабільно прямі кореляційні зв’язки між врожайністю та масою 1000 зерен, склоподібністю зерна, вмістом білка, вмістом клейковини, індексом еластичності тіста, силою борошна, пружністю тіста, водопоглинальною здатністю борошна. Висновки. Виокремлені сорти й селекційні лінії пшениці м’якої озимої можуть бути використані в селекційному процесі як джерела поєднання в одному генотипі високої врожайності та певних підвищених показників якості для створення конкурентоспроможних сортів. | Purpose. To determine the correlations between yield and grain quality indicators of varieties and breeding lines of winter bread wheat. Methods. The study was conducted under the conditions of the V. M. Remeslo Myronivka Institute of Wheat NAAS of Ukraine (MIW) during 2019/20–2021/22. Ten new varieties and four breeding lines of winter bread wheat of Myronivka breeding were evaluated. Grain quality indicators were determined in the grain quality laboratory of MIW according to conventional techniques. Pearson’s correlation coefficients (r) were calculated to establish correlations. Results. Correlations with different direction and strength were found between yield and quality indicators of winter bread wheat grain (–0.32 < r < 0.61). During the research years, reliable direct correlation coefficients were obtained between yield and the 1000 kernel weight indicator (r = 0.17–0.46). Also, a reliable linear dependence (r = 0.13–0.61) of yield with water absorption capacity of flour, test weight, grain vitreous, with protein and wet gluten content, but only under certain hydrothermal growing conditions. The varieties and breeding lines of winter bread wheat were identified which, during the years of research, showed stable direct correlations between yield and the indicators of 1000 kernel weight, grain vitreous, protein content, wet gluten content, sedimentation value, dough elasticity index, deformation energy, dough tenacity, water absorption capacity of flour. Conclusion. The selected varieties and breeding lines of winter bread wheat can be used in the breeding process as sources for combining high yield with certain improved quality indicators in one genotype to create competitive varieties.

Purpose. Reveal the features of the formation of a quali­ty indicator complex in winter bread wheat depending on the growing seasons, preceding crops and sowing dates, as well as differentiate and identify genotypes with high and stable levels of manifestation. Methods. Field, laboratory, statistical. Results. A different share of the influence of the year conditions, the preceding crop, the sowing date and their interactions on the quality indicators of some varie­ties was determined. A different reaction of varieties in terms of quality indicators, depending on the investigated factors was revealed. The variation was very low for test weight, water absorption ability of flour, crumb porosity. Strong variation was observed for flour strength after sunflower and soybean as preceding crops, alveograph configuration ratio after sunflower and soybean, index of elasticity dough after corn, valorimetric value after mustard, dough dilution degree after green manure, sunflower, corn and especially after mustard and soybeans. The varieties, which on average for 2016/17–2018/19 reliably exceeded the standard both in individual indicators and in general in terms of physical indicators of grain and flour quality and dough rheological properties. GYT biplot analysis identified the genotypes ‘MIP Vidznaka’ and ‘MIP Assol’ with a more optimal combination of increased yield and a complex of quality indicators in terms of different years, preceding crops and sowing dates. Some varieties, namely, ‘Estafeta myronivs’ka’, ‘Trudiv­nytsia myronivs’ka’, ‘MIP Valensiia’, ‘MIP Yuvileina’, ‘Balada myronivs’ka’, ‘Vezha myronivs’ka’ were inferior to them, but were significantly superior the others. Conclusions. The selected by quality indicators varieties as genetic sources can be used in breeding process. A more stable level of yield and quality indicators at different sowing dates after different preceding crops should be expected for growing varieties ‘MIP Vidznaka’, ‘MIP Assol’, as well as ‘Estafeta myronivs’ka’, ‘Trudivnytsia myronivs’ka’, ‘MIP Valensiia’, ‘MIP Yuvileina’, ‘Balada myronivs’ka’, ‘Vezha myronivs’ka’. The peculiarities obtained in the research should be taken into account when evaluating and differentiating genotypes in breeding process, as well as developing basic elements of technology for growing the varieties of winter bread wheat.

Purpose. To determine the effectiveness of using contrasting sowing dates after different predecessors to assess the genotypes of bread winter wheat in terms of yield and stability. Methods. Field, laboratory, mathematical statistics. Results. A different, but reliable level of influence on the yield of bread winter wheat genotypes of such factors as conditions of the year of cultivation (66.2%), predecessors (12.5%), sowing date (6.1%) and genotype (1.7%) was revealed. Significant differences were noted in the response of the studied genotypes to the sowing date after different predecessors. Relatively less influence of the predecessors on the yield of the varieties ‘Estafeta Myronivska’ and ‘Vezha Myronivska’ was revealed, more – for the varieties ‘MIP Darunok’, ‘MIP Kniazhna’ and ‘MIP Vyshyvanka’. The sowing dates had less influence on the yield of the varieties ‘MIP Fortuna’, ‘MIP Vyshyvanka’ and ‘Trudivnytsia Myronivska’. A general tendency for decrease in the average annual yield was established in the experiment with a shift in the sowing dates from September 26 to October 16. However, for the number of genotypes after certain predecessors, the optimal sowing date was the 5th of October: after the predecessor, green-manure fallow – for varieties ‘Trudivnytsia myronivska’, ‘MIP Assol’ and ‘MIP Dniprianka’, after mustard – ‘Vezha Myronivska’, after sunflower – ‘MIP Fortuna’, after corn – ‘MIP Fortuna’ and ‘Podolianka’. In terms of sowing dates, the least variation in yield was found after the predecessors green manure, mustard and corn varieties ‘MIP Vyshyvanka’, ‘Balada Myronivska’, ‘MIP Kniazhna’, ‘Estafeta Myronivska’. Using the GGE biplot, it was found that close to the ‘ideal environment’ for the realization of the yield level of most genotypes was the second sowing date after greenmanure fallow predecessor. For different sowing dates and predecessors, on average for three years, the optimal combination of the level of yield and stability was noted for the varieties ‘Trudivnytsia Myronivska’, ‘MIP Vidznaka’, ‘MIP Assol’, ‘Estafeta Myronivska’, ‘MIP Valensiia’. Conclusions. Thus, the use of different so wing dates after various predecessors is an effective approach to organization of genotype-environmental tests. It makes it possible to identify the genotypes which are specifically adapted to certain conditions (predecessors and sowing dates) and genotypes with a relatively high level of stability when sowing after various predecessors and on different dates. This approach can be used both at the final stage of breeding to differentiate breeding lines for yield and stability, and in the development of basic elements of technology for growing newly created varieties.

Мета. Виявити ефективність використання контрастних строків сівби після різних попередників для оцінювання генотипів пшениці м’якої озимої за врожайністю та стабільністю.Методи. Польові, лабораторні, статистичні.Результати. Установлено різний, але достовірний рівень впливу на врожайність генотипів пшениці м’якої озимої таких чинників, як умови року вирощування (66,2%), попередники (12,5%), строки сівби (6,1%) та генотип (1,7%). Відзначено достовірні відмітності в реакції досліджених генотипів на строки сівби після різних попередників. Виявлено відносно менший вплив попередників на врожайність сортів ‘Естафета миронівська’ та ‘Вежа миронівська’, більший – ‘МІП Дарунок’, ‘МІП Княжна’ та ‘МІП Вишиванка’. Строки сівби менше впливали на врожайність сортів ‘МІП Фортуна’, ‘МІП Вишиванка’ та ‘Трудівниця миронівська’, значно – сорту ‘МІП Дарунок’. Установлено загальну тенденцію зменшення середньої врожайності в досліді зі зміщенням строку сівби від 26 вересня до 16 жовтня. Однак, для низки генотипів після певних попередників оптимальним був строк сівби 5 жовтня: після попередника сидеральний пар – для сортів ‘Трудівниця миронівська’, ‘МІП Ассоль’ та ‘МІП Дніпрянка’, після гірчиці – ‘Вежа миронівська’, після соняшнику – ‘МІП Фортуна’, після кукурудзи – ‘МІП Фортуна’ та ‘Подолянка’. У розрізі строків сівби встановлено найменше варіювання врожайності після попередників сидеральний пар, гірчиця та кукурудза сортів ‘МІП Вишиванка’, ‘Балада миронівська’, ‘МІП Княжна’, ‘Естафета миронівська’. З використанням GGE biplot виявлено, що наближеним до «ідеального середовища» для реалізації рівня врожайності більшості генотипів був другий строк сівби після попередника сидеральний пар. За різними строками сівби й попередниками в середньому за три роки найоптимальніше поєднання рівня врожайності і стабільності відзначено для сортів ‘Трудівниця миронівська’, ‘МІП Відзнака’, ‘МІП Ассоль’, ‘Естафета миронівська’, ‘МІП Валенсія’.Висновки. Використання різних строків сівби після різних попередників є ефективним підходом організації генотип-середовищних випробувань. Він дає змогу ідентифікувати як специфічно адаптовані до певних умов (попередників та строків сівби) генотипи, так і генотипи з відносно вищим рівнем стабільності за сівби після різних попередників та в різні строки. Такий підхід може бути використаний як на завершальному етапі селекції для диференціювання селекційних ліній за врожайністю та стабільністю, так і під час розроблення базових елементів технології вирощування новостворених сортів. | Purpose. To determine the effectiveness of using contrasting sowing dates after different predecessors to assess the genotypes of bread winter wheat in terms of yield and stability.Methods. Field, laboratory, mathematical statistics.Results. A different, but reliable level of influence on the yield of bread winter wheat genotypes of such factors as conditions of the year of cultivation (66.2%), predecessors (12.5%), sowing date (6.1%) and genotype (1.7% ) was revealed. Significant differences were noted in the response of the studied genotypes to the sowing date after different predecessors. Relatively less influence of the predecessors on the yield of the varieties ‘Estafeta Myronivska’ and ‘Vezha Myronivska’ was revealed, more – for the varieties ‘MIP Darunok’, ‘MIP Kniazhna’ and ‘MIP Vyshyvanka’. The sowing dates had less influence on the yield of the varieties ‘MIP Fortuna’, ‘MIP Vyshyvanka’ and ‘Trudivnytsia Myronivska’. A general tendency for decrease in the average annual yield was established in the experiment with a shift in the sowing dates from September 26 to October 16. However, for the number of genotypes after certain predecessors, the optimal sowing date was the 5th of October: after the predecessor, green-manure fallow – for varieties ‘Trudivnytsia myronivska’, ‘MIP Assol’ and ‘MIP Dniprianka’, after mustard – ‘Vezha Myronivska’, after sunflower – ‘MIP Fortuna’, after corn – ‘MIP Fortuna’ and ‘Podolianka’. In terms of sowing dates, the least variation in yield was found after the predecessors green manure, mustard and corn varieties ‘MIP Vyshyvanka’, ‘Balada Myronivska’, ‘MIP Kniazhna’, ‘Estafeta Myronivska’. Using the GGE biplot, it was found that close to the ‘ideal environment’ for the realization of the yield level of most genotypes was the second sowing date after greenmanure fallow predecessor. For different sowing dates and predecessors, on average for three years, the optimal combination of the level of yield and stability was noted for the varieties ‘Trudivnytsia Myronivska’, ‘MIP Vidznaka’, ‘MIP Assol’, ‘Estafeta Myronivska’, ‘MIP Valensiia’.Conclusions. Thus, the use of different so wing dates after various predecessors is an effective approach to organization of genotype-environmental tests. It makes it possible to identify the genotypes which are specifically adapted to certain conditions (predecessors and sowing dates) and genotypes with a relatively high level of stability when sowing after various predecessors and on different dates. This approach can be used both at the final stage of breeding to differentiate breeding lines for yield and stability, and in the development of basic elements of technology for growing newly created varieties.

Purpose. To estimate the ecological plasticity of common millet yield under conditions of Steppe, Forest-Steppe and Forest of Ukraine. Methods. Mathematical and statistical: determination of stability and plasticity by Eberhart & Russell method, correlation analysis. Results. As a result of correlation analysis of millet cultivated areas during the period of 2011?2020, it was revealed that cultivated areas in Ukraine depend on the world ones (r = 0.34). It was determined that a high level of common millet yield was obtained in the forest-steppe zone, namely in Poltava, Khmelnytskyi, Cherkasy, Sumy and Kharkiv regions (2.20?2.51 t/ha). Quite high rates of yield were obtained in Vinnytsia, Kyiv (Forest-Steppe zone) and Kirovohrad (Steppe zone) regions (1.86?2.02 t/ha). Low yield over 10 years was noted in Rivne, Zhytomyr and Volyn regions, which belong to the Forrest zone (1.09?1.34 t/ha). It is shown that during 2011?2015 high variability of millet yield was observed in Khmelnytskyi, Vinnytsia and Volyn regions. The coefficient of variation was 42.0?71.3%. During 2016?2020 significant variation was noted in Donetsk, Volyn and Odesa regions. The coefficient of variation was 31.8?43.9%. In the period from 2016 to 2020, high plasticity of the yield trait was noted in Vinnitsa, Kyiv, Kharkiv, Poltava, Cherkasy, Sumy and Khmelnitsky regions. During 2016?2020 high plasticity trait of millet yield was in Vinnytsia, Kyiv, Sumy, Kharkiv, Khmelnytskyi, Cherkasy and Poltava regions. Conclusions. According to the results of the studies, it was found that with a reduction in the area under millet in the world, the volume of its production in Ukraine increases. It was determined that the hig?hest yield of millet was obtained in the Forest-Steppe zone during the years of observation. According to the plasticity of millet yield, it was found that favorable conditions for realization of its biological potential were in Donetsk and Kirovohrad regions of Steppe zone, in Forest-Steppe zone of Vinnytsia, Poltava, Kyiv, Kharkiv, Khmelnytskyi, Cherkasy and Sumy regions. | ????. ??????? ?????????? ???????????? ??????????? ????? ????????? ? ?????? ?????, ????????? ?? ??????? ???????. ??????. ??????????-???????????: ?????????? ???????????? ?? ???????????? ?? ????????? ?????????????????, ???????????? ??????. ??????????. ?? ???????????? ????????????? ??????? ???????? ???? ????? ????????? ?? ?????? 2011?2020 ??. ?????????, ?? ????? ??? ???????? ????? ????????? ? ??????? ???????? ??? ???????? (r = 0,34). ?????????, ?? ??????? ?????? ??????????? ????? ????????? ???????? ? ???? ?????????, ? ???? ? ???????????, ????????????, ??????????, ???????? ?? ??????????? ???????? (2,20?2,51 ?/??). ????????? ?????? ????????? ???????? ? ??????????, ????????? (???? ?????????) ?? ??????????????? (???? ?????) ???????? (1,86?2,02 ?/??). ?????? ??????????? ?? 10 ????? ?????????? ? ???????????, ???????????? ?? ?????????? ????????, ??? ???????? ?? ???? ??????? (1,09?1,34 ?/??). ????????, ?? ???????? 2011?2015 ??. ?????? ?????????????? ??????????? ????? ?????????????? ? ????????????, ?????????? ?? ?????????? ????????. ?????????? ???????? ???????? 42,0?71,3%. ? 2016?2020 ??. ????????? ???????? ?????????? ? ?????????, ?????????? ?? ???????? ????????. ?????????? ???????? ? 31,8?43,9%. ?????????, ?? ?? ?????? 2011?2015 ??. ??????? ???????????? ??????????? ????? ????????? ???????????????? ?????????, ????????, ????????, ??????????????, ???????, ??????????, ???????????, ????????? ?? ?????????? ???????. ? ???????? ?? 2016 ?? 2020 ??. ?????? ???????????? ?????? ??????????? ?????????? ? ??????????, ?????????, ???????????, ???????????, ??????????, ???????? ?? ???????????? ????????. ????????. ?? ???????????? ?????????? ?????????? ???????????, ?? ??? ??? ?????????? ???????? ???? ??? ?????? ???????? ? ?????, ????? ???? ??????????? ? ??????? ????????????. ?????????, ?? ????????? ??????????? ????? ????????? ?? ???????????? ???? ???????? ? ???? ?????????. ?????????? ?? ???????????? ???????????? ??????????? ????? ????????? ?????????, ?? ??? ?????????? ???????????? ?????????? ?????????? ????? ???? ? ????????? ?? ??????????????? ???????? ???? ?????, ? ???????????? ???? ? ??????????, ????????, ??????????, ???????????, ????????? ?? ??????? ???????.