Evaluation of yield stability of winter barley varieties (Hordeum vulgare L.) using additive main effects and multiplicative interaction method

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Plant breeding Ph. D. student, Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Young Researchers and Elite Club, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran.

Abstract

Background and objectives: Accurate recognition of the genotype - environment interaction nature, provides the possibility of identification of stable genotypes for breeders and it is always one of the important issues in production and release of new cultivars in plant breeding projects. The existence of genotype - environment interaction influences the genotypes value in different locations. Aim to present study was identification of the cultivars responds to different regions based on the model of the additive main effects and multiplicative interactions (AMMI), better understanding of interaction between genotype and environment, determine the general and the specific stability.
Material and methods: Ten varieties of winter barley (Hordeum vulgare L.,) (Gorgan 4, Reihan, Kavir, Nosrat, Nimrooz, Valfajr, Makoei, Zarjo, Gorgan, Strain) evaluated during 2015- 2016 in 5 regions including Karaj, Birjand, Kashmar, Sanandaj and Shiraz in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three repeats. First, Bartlett's test carried out on the data, suggesting the uniformity of errors in the various experiments. The additive main effects and multiplicative interactions method (AMMI) used to investigation of the genotype and genotype - environment interaction and find out of the adaptability and stability of genotypes.
Results: The highest grain yield belonged to strain cultivar with 602.87 g / m2, the lowest grain yield reveal for Reyhan and Zarjo cultivars was 306.73 and 3338.33 g / m2 respectively. AMMI results showed the main genotype effect, genotype - environment interaction and the first principal component interaction were significant at the 1 % likelihood level and the first interaction principal component of the genotype - environment interaction explains about 76 % of sum of squares. The interaction of genotype and environment explain 25% of the total sum of squares. For studying of the varieties stability, AMMI stability value (ASV) used and Zarjo, Nosrat and Makuei genotypes, to rate 0.77, 2.48 and 2.74 respectively, assigned lowest amount ASV, but Nosrat variety with average yield upper known as stable varieties. Between environments, Kashmar with the lowest ASV (6.58) had the highest stability. Base regression coefficient (bi) Nimrooz, Makuei and Zarjo had the adequate stability. Base coefficient of determination (Ri2) and Hanson stability estimator, Nosrat, Makuei, Zarjou and Gorgan cultivares had the upper stability. Kavir and Nosrat genotypes based AMMI1 graph, had the upper total yield average and the first component interacts was the lowest rate therefore known as the most stable genotype. Based on the first and second principal component biplot graph (AMMI2), Zarjo, Makuei and Nosrat, were the most stable genotypes. Base this graph the Kavir, Valfajr, Gorgan and Strain cultivars had the lowest yield stability.
Conclusion: The results of this study show the significant genetics variability among genotypes and genotype - environment interaction and base AMMI method, Kavir and Nosrat were the most stable genotypes.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

1. Abdemishani, S., and Shahnejatboshehri,
A.A. 2008. Advance in Plant
Breeding. Tehran university press. 248p.
(In Persian)
2. Albert, M.J.A. 2004. A comparison of
statistical methods to describe
genotype×environment interaction and
yield stability in multi-location maize
trials. M.Sc. Thesis. Department of Plant
Sci., the University of the Free State,
Bloemfontein.
3. Anandan, A., and Eswaran, R. 2009.
Genotype by environment interaction of
rice (Oryza sativa L.) hybrids in the east
coast saline region of Tamil Nadu. In the
Proceeding of 2ⁿᵈ Iteraction Rice Con,
Pp: 226-234.
4. Badooei Delfard, R., Mostafavi, K., and
Mohammadi, A. 2016. Genotype –
Environment Interaction and Yield
Stability of Winter Barley Varieties
(Hordeum vulgare L.). J. Crop Breed.,
20(3): 99-106.
5. Crossa, J. 1990. Statistical analysis of
multi location trials. Adv. Agr., 44: 55-
85.
6. Ehdaei, B. 1994. Plant Breeding.
Barsava press. Publication of Mashhad.
256p. (In Persian)
7. Farshadfar, A. 1998. Quantitative
Genetic in Plant Vreeding. Second
volume. Tagh bostan press. 381p. (In
Persian)
8. Farshadfar, E., and Sutka, J. 2006.
Biplot analysis of genotype-environment
interaction in durum wheat using the
AMMI model. Acta Agr. Hung.,, 54(4):
459- 467.
9. Gauch, H.G. 1988. Model selection and
validation for yield trials with
interaction. Biometrics., 44: 705- 715.
10. Gauch, H.G. 1992. Statistical Analysis
of Regional Trials, AMMI Analysis of
Factorial Designs. Elsevier Pub.
Amsterdam, Netherlands.
11. Gauch, H.G., and Zobel, R.W. 1997.
Identifying mega-environments and
targeting genotypes. Crop Sci., 37: 311-
326.
12. Gollob, H.F. 1968. A statistical model
which combines features of factor
analytic and analysis of variance
techniques. Psycometrika., 33: 367- 376.
13. Miller, P.A., Williams, C.J., Robinson,
H.F., and Comstock, R. 1958. Estimates
of genotypic and environmental
variances and covariance in upland
cotton and their implication in selection.
Agr., J., 50: 126- 137.
14. Miller, P.A., Williams, J.C., and
Robinson, H.F. 1959.
Variety×environment interaction in
cotton variety tests and their implication
on testing methods. Agr. J., 51: 132-134.
15. Mandel, J. 1971. A new analysis of
variance model for non-additive data.
Technometrics., 13: 1- 18.
16. Nikkhah, H.R., Yousefi, A.,
Mortazavian, S.M., and Arazmjoo, M.
2007. Analysis of yield stability of
barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) genotypes
using additive main effects and
multiplicative interaction (AMMI)
model. Iran. J. Crop Sci., 9, 1(33): 1-12.
(In Persian)
17. Purchase, J.L. 1997. Parametric analysis
to describe genotype×environment
interaction and yield stability in winter
wheat. Ph.D. dissertation, department of
agronomy, university of Free State,
Bloemfontein, South Africa.
18. Purchase, J.L., Hatting, H., and Van
Deventer, C.S. 2000. Genotype
×environment interaction of winter
wheat in south Africa: II. Stability
analysis of yield performance. South
Africa J. Plant Soil., 17(3): 101-107.
19. Raiger, H.L., and Prabhakaran, V.T.
2001. A study on the performance of a
few non-parametric stability measures
using pearl-millet data. Indian J. Genet,
61: 7- 11.
20. Rharrabti, Y., Garcia del moral, L.F.,
Villegas, D., and Royo, C. 2003. Durum
wheat quality in Mediterranean
environments ill: Stability and
comparative methods in analyzing G×E
interaction. Field Crop Res., 80: 141-
146.
21. Rodriguez, M., Rau, D., and Papa, R.
2007. Genotype by environment
interactions in barley (Hordeum vulgare
L.): different responses of landraces,
recombinant inbred lines and varieties to
Mediterranean environment. Euphytica.,
163(2): 231-247.
22. Saeid, A., Moghadam M., and
Mohammadi, A. 2005. Investigation of
yield stability in rics cultivars and lines
using AMMI analysis. Abstract article
of 8th Iranian Congress in Agronomy
and Plant Breeding. Gilan University,
Rasht, Pp: 432-441. (In Persian)
23. Xie, M. 1996. Selection of stable
cultivars using phenotypic variances.
Crop Sci., 36: 572-576.
24. Yan, W., and Hunt, L.A. 2002. Biplot
analysis of multi-environment trial data.
Quant. Genetics, Genomics Plant Breed.
J., 19: 289- 303.
25. Zobel, R.W., Wright, M.J., and Gauch,
H.G. 1988. Statistical analysis of yield
trial. Agr. J., 80: 388-393.
Journal of Crop Production
Volume 11, Issue 2
September 2018
Pages 185-195

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics