Using additive main effect and multiplicative interaction model for exploration of yield stability in some lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.) genotypes
Naser Sabaghnia
sabaghnia@yahoo.comDepartment of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Maragheh, Maragheh, Iran (Iran, Islamic Republic of)
Rahmatollah Karimizadeh
Dryland Agricultural Research Institute (DARI), Gachsaran, Iran (Iran, Islamic Republic of)
Mohtasham Mohammadi
Dryland Agricultural Research Institute (DARI), Gachsaran, Iran (Iran, Islamic Republic of)
Abstract
The additive main effect and multiplicative interaction (AMMI) analysis has been indicated to be effective in interpreting complex genotype by environment (GE) interactions of lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.) multi- environmental trials. Eighteen improved lentil genotypes were grown in 12 semiarid environments in Iran from 2007 to 2009. Complex GE interactions are difficult to understand with ordinary analysis of variance (ANOVA) or conventional stability methods. Combined analysis of variance indicated the genotype by loca- tion interaction (GL) and three way interactions (GYL) were highly significant. FGH1 and FGH2 tests indicated the five significant components; FRatio showed three significant components and F-Gollob detected seven significant components. The RMSPD (root mean square predicted difference) values of validation procedure indicated seven significant components. Using five components in AMMI stability parameters (EVFI, SIP- CFI, AMGEFI and DFI) indicated that genotypes G5 and G6 were the most stable genotypes while consider- ing three components in of AMMI stability parameters (EVFII, SIPCFII, AMGEFII and DFII) showed that genotypes G8 and G18 were the most stable genotypes. Also genotypes G2, G5 and G18 were the most stable genotypes according to AMMI stability parameters which calculated from seven components (EVFIII, SIP- CFIII, AMGEFIII and DFIII). Among these stable genotypes, only genotypes G2 (1365.63 kg × ha-1), G11 (1374.13 kg × ha-1) and G12 (1334.73 kg × ha-1) had high mean yield and so could be regarded as the most favorable genotype. These genotypes are therefore recommended for release as commercial cultivars
Keywords:
adaptation, AMMI stability parameters, genotype by environment (GE) interactionsReferences
Annicchiarico P. 1997. Joint regression vs AMMI analysis of genotype-environment interactions for cereals in Italy. Euphytica 94: 53–62.
Google Scholar
Cornelius P.L. 1980. Functions approximating Mandel’s tables for the means and standard deviations of the first three roots of a wishart matrix. Technometrics 224: 613–616.
Google Scholar
Cornelius P.L. 1993. Statistical tests and retention of terms in the additive main effects and multiplicative interaction model for cultivar trials. Crop Sci. 33: 1186–1193.
Google Scholar
Cornelius P.L., Seyedsadr M.S., Crossa J. 1992. Using the shifted multiplicative model to search for "separability" in crop cultivar trials. Theor. Appl. Genet. 84: 161–172.
Google Scholar
Crossa J., Vargas M., Joshi A.K. 2010. Linear, bilinear, and linear-bilinear fixed and mixed models for ana- lyzing genotype × environment interaction in plant breeding and agronomy. Can. J. Plant Sci. 90: 561– 574,
Google Scholar
Dehghani, H., Sabaghpour, S.H., Ebadi A. 2010. Study of Genotype × Environment Interaction for Chickpea Yield in Iran. Agron. J. 102: 1–8
Google Scholar
Ebdon J.S. Gauch H.G. 2002. Additive main effect and multiplicative interaction analysis of national turfgrass performance trials: I. Interpretation of genotype × environment interaction. Crop Sci. 42: 489–496.
Google Scholar
Flores F., Moreno M.T., Cubero J.I. 1998. A comparison of univariate and multivariate methods to analyze environments. Field Crops Res. 56: 271–286.
Google Scholar
Gauch H.G. 2006. Statistical analysis of yield trials by AMMI and GGE. Crop Sci. 46: 1488–1500.
Google Scholar
Gauch H.G. 2007. MATMODEL version 3.0: Open source software for AMMI and related analyses. Avail- able at http://www.css.cornell.edu/staff/gauch (verified 6 April 2012). Crop and Soil Sciences, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY.
Google Scholar
Gauch H.G., Zobel R.W. 1988. Predictive and postdictive success of statistical analyses of yield trials. Theor. Appl. Genet. 76: 1–10.
Google Scholar
Gauch H.G., Zobel R.W. 1996. AMMI analysis of yield trials. p. 85–122. In M.S. Kang and H.G. Gauch (ed.) Genotype-by-environment interaction. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Google Scholar
Gauch H.G., Zobel R.W. 1997. Identifying mega-environments and targeting genotypes. Crop Sci. 37: 311– 326.
Google Scholar
Gauch H.G., Piepho H.P., Annicchiarico P. 2008. Statistical Analysis of Yield Trials by AMMI and GGE: Further Considerations Crop Sci. 48: 866–889.
Google Scholar
Genstat 2010. Genstat for Windows. 12th ed. VSN Int., Hemel Hempstead, UK.
Google Scholar
Gollob H.F. 1968. A statistical model which combines features of factor ana-lytic and analysis of variance techniques. Psychometrika 33: 73–115.
Google Scholar
Goyal A., Beres B.L., Randhawa H.S., Navabi A., Salmon D.F., Eudes F. 2011. Yield stability analysis of broadly adaptive triticale germplasm in southern and central Alberta, Canada, for industrial end-use suitability Can. J. Plant Sci. 91: 125–135.
Google Scholar
Lin C.S., Binns M.R., Lefkovitch L.P. 1986. Stability analysis: Where do we stand?. Crop Sci. 26: 894–900. Mohebodini M., Dehghani H., Sabaghpour S.H. 2006. Stability of performance in lentil (Lens culinaris Medik) genotypes in Iran. Euphytica 149: 343–352.
Google Scholar
Purchase J.L. 1997. Parametric analysis to describe G × E interaction and yield stability in winter wheat.Ph.D. thesis. Dep. of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, Univ. of the Orange Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.
Google Scholar
Sabaghnia N., Dehghani H., Sabaghpour S.H. 2008a. Graphic Analysis of Genotype by Environment Interac- tion for Lentil Yield in Iran. Agron. J. 100: 760–764.
Google Scholar
Sabaghnia N., Dehghani H., Sabaghpour S.H. 2008b. The use of an AMMI model and its parameters to ana- lyze yield stability in multi-envi-ronment trials. J. Agric. Sci. 146: 571–581.
Google Scholar
SAS Institute 2004. SAS/STAT user’s guide. v. 9.1. SAS Inst., Cary, NC.
Google Scholar
Sneller C.H., Cilgore-Norquest L., Dombek D. 1997. Repeatability of yield stability in soybean. Crop Sci. 37: 383–390.
Google Scholar
Williams E.J. 1952. The interpretation of interactions in factorial experiments. Biometrika 39: 65–81
Google Scholar
Yan W., Tinker N.A. 2006. Biplot analysis of multi-environment trial data: Principles and applications. Can. J. Plant Sci. 86: 623–645.
Google Scholar
Yan W., Pageau D., Frégeau-Reid J., Lajeunesse J., Goulet J., Durand J., Marois D. 2011. Oat mega- environments and test-locations in Quebec. Can. J. Plant Sci. 91: 643–649.
Google Scholar
Zobel R.W. 1994. Stress resistance and root systems. p. 80–99. In Proc. of the Workshop on Adaptation of Plants to Soil Stress. 1–4 Aug. 1993. INTSORMIL Publ. 94–2. Inst. of Agriculture and Natural Re- sources, Univ. of Nebraska, Lincoln.
Google Scholar
Zobel R.W., Gauch H.G. 1988. Statistical analysis of a yield trial. Agron. J. 80: 388–393.
Google Scholar
Zobel R.W., Wright M.J., Gauch H.G. 1988. Statistical analysis of a yield trial. Agron. J. 80: 388–393.
Google Scholar
Authors
Naser Sabaghniasabaghnia@yahoo.com
Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Maragheh, Maragheh, Iran Iran, Islamic Republic of
Authors
Rahmatollah KarimizadehDryland Agricultural Research Institute (DARI), Gachsaran, Iran Iran, Islamic Republic of
Authors
Mohtasham MohammadiDryland Agricultural Research Institute (DARI), Gachsaran, Iran Iran, Islamic Republic of
Statistics
Abstract views: 106PDF downloads: 39
License
All articles published in electronic form under CC BY-SA 4.0, in open access, the full content of the licence is available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode.pl .
