Volume 10, Issue 28 (12-2018)                   jcb 2018, 10(28): 1-12 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Najafi Mirak T, Dastfal M, Andarzian B, Farzadi H, Bahari M, Zali H. Evaluation of Durum Wheat Cultivars and Promising Lines for Yield and Yield Stability in Warm and Dry Areas using AMMI Model and GGE Biplot. jcb. 2018; 10 (28) :1-12
URL: http://jcb.sanru.ac.ir/article-1-760-en.html
Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization(AREEO)
Abstract:   (894 Views)
To obtain high yield and stable genotypes, 18 durum wheat cultivars and promising lines along with two commercial durum (Behrang) and bread wheat (Chamran) as check cultivars, were evaluated in four warm and dry regions in Iran including Darab, Ahvaz, Khoramabad and Dezful during two cropping seasons (2013-2015). The experiments were conducted as a RCBD with three replications. Seed yield and some agronomic characteristics were recorded in each location. The results that first two bilinear AMMI model terms were significant and of which the first two terms explained 85.17% of the genotype × environment interaction. Also the results of AMMI model (AMMI1 and AMMI2) indicated that lines no. G5 (DW-93-5), G10 (DW-93-10) and G12 (DW-93-12) were the most stable lines with high mean yield performance. The polygon-view of GGE biplot recognized five superior lines (lines G5 (DW-93-5), G9 (DW-93-9), G13 (DW-93-13), G16 (DW-93-16) and G17 (DW-93-17)) and two mega-environments so that the best genotypes within each environment were determined. Simultaneous evaluation of yield and stability through average environment coordinate (AEC) biplot showed that line no. G5 (DW-93-5) with the highest seed yield and stability was the most stable line. Biplot analysis of correlation among environments revealed that environmental vectors of Khoramabad with three locations including Darab, dezful and Ahvaz were near to 90 so; these three locations were different from Khoramabad. Totally, Khoramabad, Darab and dezful locations had high discriminating ability so that were be able to show differences between lines and cultivars at ideal environment, so they had the highest discriminating ability and representativeness. Finally, lines no. G5 (DW-93-5) and G10 (DW-93-10) with high yield, broad adaptability, relative resistance to foliar diseases and seed quality were selected as best line for further investigation and to be candidate as commercial durum wheat cultivars. 
Full-Text [PDF 1305 kb]   (295 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Applicable | Subject: اصلاح نباتات، بیومتری
Received: 2017/04/30 | Revised: 2019/03/2 | Accepted: 2017/12/12 | Published: 2019/03/2

1. Aghaee Sarbarzeh, M., M. Dastfal, H. Farzadi, B. Andarzian, A. Shahbazpour Shahbazi, M. Bahari and H. Rostami. 2012. Evaluation of durum wheat genotypes for yield and yield stability in warm and dry areas of Iran. Seed and Plant Improvement Journal, 2: 315-325 (In Persian).
2. Aghaee-Sarbarzeh, M., M. Bahari, H. Farzadi, B. Andarzian, M. Dastfal and T. NajafiMirak. 2014. Evaluation of grain yield and its stability in durum wheat genotypes in warm and dry areas of Iran. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences, 16(1): 1-11 (In Persian).
3. Bose, L.K., N.N. Jambhulkar and O.N. Singh. 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.
4. Brennan, J.P., A. Aw-Hassan, K.J. Quade and T.L. Nordblom. 2002. Impact of ICARDA Research on Australian Agriculture, Economic Research Report No. 11. , NSW Agriculture, Wagga Wagga,
5. Fan, X.M., M.S. Kang, H. Chen, Y. Zhang, J. Tan and C. Xu. 2007. Yield stability of maize hybrids evaluated in multi-environment trials in Yunnan, China. Agronomy Journal, 99: 220-228. [DOI:10.2134/agronj2006.0144]
6. Farshadfar, E., H. Zali and R. Mohammadi. 2011. Evaluation of phenotypic stability in chickpea genotypes using GGE-Biplot. Annals of Biological Research, 2(6): 282-292.
7. Farshadfar, E., M. Rashidi, M.M. Jokar and H. Zali. 2013. GGE Biplot analysis of genotype × environment interaction in chickpea genotypes, 3(1):417-423.
8. Farshadfar, E., S.H. Sabaghpour and H. Zali. 2012. Comparison of parametric and non‐parametric stability statistics for selecting stable chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes under diverse environments. Australian Journal of Crop Science, 6: 514‐524.
9. Gauch, H.G. 1992. Statistical analysis of regional trials. AMMI analysis of factorial designs. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 287 pp.
10. Gauch, H.G. and R.W. Zobel. 1996. AMMI analysis of yield trials, In: Kang M.S. and H.G. GauchJr (eds.), Genotype by environment interaction. CRC Press, Boca Raton, New York, 85-122 pp. [DOI:10.1201/9781420049374.ch4]
11. Mohammadi, R. and A. Amri. 2008. Comparison of parametric and non-parametric methods for selecting stable and adapted durum wheat genotypes in variable environments. Euphytica, 159(3): 419-432. [DOI:10.1007/s10681-007-9600-6]
12. Mohammadi, R., E. Farshadfar and A. Amri. 2015. Interpreting genotype × environment interactions for grain yield of rainfed durum wheat in Iran. The Crop Journal, 3: 526-535. [DOI:10.1016/j.cj.2015.08.003]
13. Mohammadi, R., M. Armion, B. Sadeghzadeh, S. Golkari, G.H. Khalilzadeh, H. Ahmadi, G.H. Abedi-Asl and M. Eskandari. 2016. Assessment of grain yield stability and adaptability of rainfed durum wheat breeding lines. Applied Field Crops Research, 29(4): 25-42 (In Persian).
14. Navabi, A., R. Yang, J. Helm and D.M. Spaner. 2006. Can spring wheat-growing mega environments in the northern Great Plains be dissected for representative locations or niche adapted genotypes? Crop Science, 46: 1107-1116. [DOI:10.2135/cropsci2005.06-0159]
15. Purchase, J. 1997. Parametric analysis to describe genotype environment interaction and yield stability in winter wheat. Ph.D. University of the Free State, South Africa. 84 pp.
16. Pourdad, S.S. and M. Jamshid Moghaddam. 2013. Study on genotype ×environment interaction through GGE biplot for seed yield in spring rapeseed (Brassica Napus L.) in rain-fed condition. Journal of Crop Breeding, 5(12): 1-14 (In Persian).
17. Rao, P.S., P.S. Reddy, A. Ratore, B.V.S. Reddy and S. Panwar. 2011. Application GGE biplot and AMMI model to evaluate sweet sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) hybrids for genotype × environment interaction and seasonal adaptation. Indian Journal Agricultural Science, 81: 438-444.
18. Roostaei, M., R. Mohammadi and A. Amri. 2014. Rank correlation among different statistical models in ranking of winter wheat genotypes. The Crop Journal, 2: 154-163. [DOI:10.1016/j.cj.2014.02.002]
19. Safavi, S.M. and S. Bahraminejad. 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).
20. Sharifi, P., H. Aminpanah, R. Erfani, A. Mohaddesi and A. Abbasian. 2017. Evaluation of genotype × environment interaction in rice based on AMMI model in Iran.Rice Science, 24(3): 173-180. [DOI:10.1016/j.rsci.2017.02.001]
21. Sneller, C.H., L. Kilgore-Norquest and D. Dombek. 1997. Repeatability of yield stability in soybean. Crop Science, 37: 383-390. [DOI:10.2135/cropsci1997.0011183X003700020013x]
22. Temesgen, T., G. Keneni, T. Sefera and M. Jarso. 2015. Yield stability and relationships among stability parameters in faba bean (Vicia faba L.) genotypes. The Crop Journal, 3: 258-268. [DOI:10.1016/j.cj.2015.03.004]
23. Yan, W. 2001. GGEbiplot-A widow's application for graphical analysis of multienvironment trial data and other types of two-way data. Agronomy Journal, 93: 1111-1118. [DOI:10.2134/agronj2001.9351111x]
24. Yan, W. and I. Rajcan. 2002. Biplot analysis of sites and trait relations of soybean in Ontario. Crop Science, 42: 11-20. [DOI:10.2135/cropsci2002.0011]
25. Yan, W., L.A. Hunt, Q. Sheny and Z. Szlavnics. 2000. Cultivar evaluation and mega-environment investigation based on the GGE biplot. Crop Science, 40: 597-605. [DOI:10.2135/cropsci2000.403597x]
26. Yan, W. and M.S. Kang. 2003. GGE biplot analysis: A graphical tool for breeders, Geneticists and agronomists. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 288 pp. [DOI:10.1201/9781420040371]
27. Yan, W. and N.A. Tinker. 2005. An integrated biplot analysis system for displaying, interpreting and exploring genotype × environment interaction. Crop Science, 45: 1004-1016. [DOI:10.2135/cropsci2004.0076]
28. Zali, H., O. Sofalian, T. Hasanloo and A. Asghari. 2016. Evaluation of yield stability and drought tolerance based AMMI and GGE biplot analysis in Brassica napus L. Agricultural Communications, 4(1): 1-8. [DOI:10.29252/jcb.8.18.191]
29. Zali, H., E. Farshadfar, S.H. Sabaghpour and R. Karimizadeh. 2012. Evaluation of genotype × environment interaction in chickpea using measures of stability from AMMI model. Annals of Biological Research, 3 (7): 3126-3136.
30. Zarei, L., E. Farshadfar, R. Haghparast, R. Rajabi, M. Mohammadi Sarab Badieh and H. Zali. 2012. Comparison of different methods of stability evaluation in bread wheat genotypes under drought stress conditions. Electronic Journal of Crop Breeding, 5(3): 81-97 (In Persian).

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

Send email to the article author

© 2020 All Rights Reserved | Journal of Crop Breeding

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb