Evaluation of Stability and Adaption of Bread Wheat Genotypes Using Univariate Statistics Parameters and AMMI

Mahdavi, Amir Mohammad; Babaeian Jelodar, Nadali; Farshadfar, Ezatollah; Bagheri, Nadali

doi:10.52547/pgr.7.1.2

[Home ] [Archive]

[ فارسی ]

Main Menu

Home

Journal Information

Articles archive

For Authors

For Reviewers

Registration

Contact us

Site Facilities

Search in website

Receive site information

Volume 7, Issue 1 (2020)

pgr 2020, 7(1): 19-32

Back to browse issues page

Evaluation of Stability and Adaption of Bread Wheat Genotypes Using Univariate Statistics Parameters and AMMI

Amir Mohammad Mahdavi

, Nadali Babaeian Jelodar

, Ezatollah Farshadfar

, Nadali Bagheri ^*

Department of Plant Breeding, Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University, Sari, Iran , n.bagheri@sanru.ac.ir

Abstract: (9621 Views)

In order to determine yield stability of 23 bread wheat genotypes and two commercial cultivars as check, an experiment was conducted based on a randomized complete block design with three replications in the experimental field of faculty of Agriculture, Razi University Kermanshah (Iran), during three cropping seasons (2015-2018). The results of combined ANOVA showed that the effect of environment, genotype and genotype × environment interactions on grain yield were significant (P<0.01). Stability was evaluated using environmental variance statistics, coefficient of variation, Wrick´s ecovalence, Shukla’s stability variance, Regression slope, deviation from regression slope, Plaisted and Peterson method and AMMI model. Variance analysis of additive main effects and multiplicative (AMMI) showed that three IPCAs were significant at 1% probability level. The first three principal components justified a round 85.7% of the sum of square of the interaction. Also, AMMI stability value (ASV) was used for simultaneously using information obtained from two significant components of AMMI. According to ASV index, genotypes Pishgam, Wc-4958 and Pishtaaz had the lowest ASV value and were known as the most stable genotypes. Genotypes Wc-4987, Wc-47615, Wc-47399 and Wc-47638 had the highest ASV value and distance from the center of Bi-plot. Therefore, Pishtaaz is one of the most stable genotypes due to having the first rank in terms of studied parameters as well as proper bakery properties and desirable drought resistance. In general, regarding to the climate change in the country, especially in the rainfed conditions and based on the above statistics and the biplots derived from AMMI analysis, the Wc-4958 line, with pishtaaz and Pishgam cultivars as stable and adaptable genotypes, are suggested to rainfed conditions on the studied area.

Keywords: AMMI stability value, AMMI analysis, Grain yield, Bread wheat

Full-Text [PDF 598 kb] (1565 Downloads)

Type of Study: Research | Subject: Plant improvement

References

1. Adugna, W. and Labuschagne, M.T. (2006). Parametric and non-parametric measures of phenotypic stability in linseed (Linum usitatissimum L.). Euphytica, 129: 211-218.

2. Aghaee-Sarbarzeh, M., Rostaee, M., Mohammadi, R., Haghparast, R. and Rajabi, R. (2009). Determination of drought tolerant genotypes in bread wheat. Electronic Journal of Crop Production, 2: 1-23 (In Persian).

3. Albert, J.A. (2004). A comparison of statistical methods to describe genotype × environment interaction and yield stability in multi-location maize trials. M.Sc. Thesis, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.

4. Amini, A., Vahabzadeh, M., Afiuni, D., Saberi, M.H. and Tabatabaei, M.T. (2008). Study of adaptation and grain yield stability of wheat genotypes in salt effected regions of Iran. 18th EUCARPIA General Congress, Valencia, Spain.

5. Annicchiarico, P., Russi, L., Piano, E. and Veronesi, F. (2012). Cultivar adaptation across Italian locations in four turfgrass species. Crop Science, 46: 564-272.

6. Annicchiarico, P. (2002). Genotype × Environment Interactions: Challenges and Opportunities for Plant Breeding and Cultivar Recommendations. Instituto Sperimentale per le Colture ForaggereLody, IT.

7. Becker, B. and Leon, J. (1988). Stability analysis in plant breeding. Plant Breeding, 101: 1-23. [DOI:10.1111/j.1439-0523.1988.tb00261.x]

8. Bose, L.K., Jambhulkar, N.N. and Singh, O.N. (2014). Additive main effects and multiplicative interaction (AMMI) analysis of grain yield stability in early duration rice. The Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences, 24(6): 1885-1897.

9. Ebdon, J.S. and Gauch, H.G. (2002). Additive main effect and multiplicative interaction analysis of national turf grass performance trials: II. Cultivar recommendations. Crop Science, 42: 497-506.

10. Eberhart, S.A. and Russell, W.A. (1966). Stability parameters for comparing varieties. Crop Science, 6: 36-40.

11. Farshadfar, E., Mahmodi, N. and Yaghotipoor, A. (2011). AMMI stability value and simultaneous estimation of yield and yield stability in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Australian Journal of Crop Science, 5: 1837-1844.

12. Finlay, K.W. and Wilkinson, G.N. (1963). The analysis of adaptation in a plant breeding program. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 14: 742-754.

13. Francis, T.R. and Kannenberg, L.W. (1978). Yield stability studies in short season maize. descriptive method for grouping genotypes. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 58: 1026-1034.

14. Gauch, H.G. (1992). Statistical Analysis of Regional Trials. AMMI Analysis of Factorial Designs. Elsevier, Amsterdam, NL.

15. Gauch, H.G. and Zobel, R.W. (1996). AMMI Analysis of Yield Trials, In: Kang, M.S. and GauchJr, H.G., Eds., Genotype by Environment Interaction. pp. 50-80. CRC Press, Boca Raton, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420049374 [DOI:10.1201/9781420049374.ch4]

16. Ghodrati-Niari, F. and Abdolshahi, R. (2014). Evaluation of yield stability of 40 bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes using additive main effects and multiplicative interaction (AMMI). Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences, 16(4): 322-333 (In Persian).

17. Jahromi, H.M.A., Khodarahmi, M.M., Mohammadi, A.R. and Mohammadi, A. (2011). Stability analysis for grain yield of promising durum wheat genotypes in southern warm and dry agro-climatic zone of Iran. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences, 13(3): 565-579 (In Persian).

18. Jasemi, S.S., Naghipour, F., Sanjani, S., Esfandiyari, E., Khorsand, H. and Najafian, G. (2017). Evaluation of quality properties of four wheats (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars in wheat producing provinces of Iran. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences, 19(2): 102-115 (In Persian).

19. Kandus, M., Almorza, D., Boggio Ronceros, R. and Salerno, J.C. (2010). Statistical models for evaluating the genotype-environment interaction in maize. International Journal of Experimental Botany, 79: 39-46.

20. Katsura, K., Tsujimoto, Y., Oda, M., Matsushima, K.I., Inusah, B., Dogbe, W. and Sakagami, J.I. (2016). Genotype by environments interaction analysis of rice (Oryza spp) yield in a flood plain ecosystem in West Africa. European Journal of Agronomy, 73: 152- 159.

21. Lin, C.S. and Binns, M.R. (1986). A superiority measure of cultivar performance for cultivar x location data. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 68: 193-198.

22. Messina, C.D., Podlich, D., Dong, Z., Samples, M. and Cooper, M. (2011). Yield trait performance landscapes: from theory to application in breeding maize for drought tolerance. Journal of Experimental Botany, 62: 855-868.

23. Mohammadi, R. and Amri, A. (2008). Comparison of parametric and non-parametric methods for selecting stable and adapted durum wheat genotypes in variable environments. Euphytica, 159(3): 419-432.

24. Mohammadi, M., Karimizadeh, R., Hosseinpour, T., Ghojogh, H., Shahbazi, K. and Sharifi, P. (2018). Use of parametric and non-parametric methods for genotype × environment interaction analysis in bread wheat genotypes. Plant Genetic Researches, 4(2): 75-88 (In Persian).

25. Martin, J. and Alberts, A. (2004). A comparison of statistical methods to describe x environment interction and yield stability in multlocation Maize trials. M.Sc. Thesis, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.

26. Mondal, S., Singh, R.P., Mason, E.R., Huerta-Espino, J., Autrique, E. and Joshi, A.K. (2016). Grain yield, adaptation and progress in breeding for early-maturing and heat-tolerant wheat lines in South Asia. Field Crops Research, 192: 78-85.

27. Mustatea, P., Saulesu, N., Ittue, G., Paunescu, G., Voinea, L., Stere, I., Mirlogeana, S., Constantiescu, E. and Nastase, D. (2009). Grain yield and yield stability of winters wheat cultivars in contrasting weather conditions. Romanian Agricultural Research, 26: 1-8.

28. Plaisted, R.L. (1960). A shorter method for evaluating the ability of selections to yield consistently over locations. American Potato Journal, 37: 166-172.

29. Plaisted, R.L. and Peterson, L.C. (1959). A technique for evaluating the ability of selections to yield consistently in different locations or seasons. American Potato Journal, 36: 381-385.

30. Purchase, J. (1997). Parametric analysis to describe genotype environment interaction and yield stability in winter wheat. Ph.D. Thesis, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.

31. Purchase, J.L., Hatting, H. and Vandeventer, C.S. (2000). Genotype × environment interaction of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in South Africa: II. Stability analysis of yield performance. South African Journal of Plant and Soil, 17(3): 101-107.

32. Rommer, T.H. (1917). Sind die ertragreicheren sorten ertragssicherer. DGL-Mitt, 32: 87-89.

33. Roustaie, M., Mohammadi, R. and Amri, A. (2014). Rank correlation among different statistical models in ranking of winter wheat genotypes. The Crop Journal, 2: 154-163.

34. Safavi, S.M. and Bahraminejad, S. (2013). The evaluation of genotype × environment interactions for grain yield of oat genotypes using AMMI model. Journal of Crop Breeding, 9(22): 125-132 (In Persian).

35. Sharifi, P., Aminpanah, H. Erfani, R., Mohaddesi, A. and Abbasian, A. (2017). Evaluation of genotype × environment interaction in rice based on AMMI model in Iran. Rice Science, 24(3): 173-180.

36. Shukla, G.K. (1972). Some statistical aspects of partitioning genotype-environmental components of variability. Heredity, 29: 237-245.

37. Temesgen, T., Keneni, G., Sefera, T. and Jarso, M. (2015). Yield stability and relationships among stability parameters in faba bean (Vicia faba L.) genotypes. The Crop Journal, 3: 258-268.

38. Trethowan, R.M., Van Ginkel, M., Ammar, K., Crossa, J., Payne, T.S., Cukadar, B., Rajaram, S. and Hernandez, E. (2003). Associations among twenty years of international bread wheat yield evaluation environments. Crop Science, 43: 1698-1711.

39. Wricke, G. (1962). Uber eine methode zur erfassung der okologischen streubreite in feldversuchen. Z. Pflanzenzuechtg, 47: 92-96.

40. Yan, W. and Hunt, L.A. (2001). Interpretation of genotype × environment interaction for winter wheat yield in Ontario. Crop Science, 41: 656-663.

41. Zali, H., Farshadfar, E., Sabaghpour, S.H. and Karimizadeh, R. (2012). Evaluation of genotype × environment interaction in chickpea using measures of stability from AMMI model. Annals of Biological Research, 3(7): 3126-3136.

42. Zarei, L., Farshadfar, E., Haghparast, R., Rajabi, R., Mohammadi-Sarab-Badieh, M. and Zali, H. (2012). Comparison of different methods of stability evaluation in bread wheat genotypes under drought stress conditions. Electronic Journal of Crop Production, 5: 81-97 (In Persian).

Send email to the article author

‎ 10.52547/pgr.7.1.2

‎ 20.1001.1.23831367.1399.7.1.1.8

Mendeley

Zotero

RefWorks

Mahdavi A M, Babaeian Jelodar N, Farshadfar E, Bagheri N. Evaluation of Stability and Adaption of Bread Wheat Genotypes Using Univariate Statistics Parameters and AMMI. pgr 2020; 7 (1) :19-32
URL: http://pgr.lu.ac.ir/article-1-162-en.html

Rights and permissions
	This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Volume 7, Issue 1 (2020)

Back to browse issues page

Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.06 seconds with 38 queries by YEKTAWEB 4657