Volume 10, Issue 25 (6-2018)                   jcb 2018, 10(25): 73-80 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Omrani S, Naji A M, Esmaeil Zadeh Moghadam M. (2018). Evaluation of Yield Stability of Bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Genotypes using Additive Main Effects and Multiplicative Interaction (AMMI). jcb. 10(25), 73-80. doi:10.29252/jcb.10.25.73
URL: http://jcb.sanru.ac.ir/article-1-564-en.html
Evaluation of Yield Stability of Bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Genotypes using Additive Main Effects and Multiplicative Interaction (AMMI)
Saeed Omrani , Amir Mohammad Naji , Mohsen Esmaeil Zadeh Moghadam
Department of Plant Breeding, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract:   (3776 Views)

To evaluate the genotype × environment interaction and determine the stable genotypes of wheat, 30 genotypes of bread wheat along with two controls namely Chamran  and Chamran 2 were studied in 6 locations (Ahwaz, Darab, Dezful, Iranshahr, Khorramabad, Zabul) and two years (from 2013 to 2015), in each using an alpha lattice design with 4 replications. The results obtained from AMMI analysis demonstrated that the main effects of genotype, environment, genotype × environment interaction and the first four principal components were highly significant. The first four principal components justified around 90.9% of the sum of squares of the interactions. By using the stability of the figures of the statistics lasting value AMMI (ASV), genotypes 2, 6, 14, 28 had the lowest (ASV) values. Genotypes 2, 6 and 14 with higher yields than the overall mean were identified as high yielding genotypes with stable performance. Drawing the biplot of the first principal component and the average yield for genotypes and environments suggested that genotypes 9, 28, 25, 12, 14, 10, 2 and 6 had low interactions, but genotypes 14, 10, 2 and 6 with higher than average yields and desired stability were selected. Biplot of the first two principal components showed that the interaction between genotypes 2, 6, 7 and 14 due to higher grain yield than the average of the total, were identified genotypes with good compatibility. Genotype grouping them into three groups based on the model SHMM placed in the first group of 22 genotypes, genotypes 9 in the second group and the third group was the only genotype 20.

Keywords: AMMI, Compatibility, Genotype × Environment interaction, Wheat, Yield stability
Full-Text [PDF 1745 kb]   (992 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: General
Received: 2016/06/5 | Revised: 2018/07/7 | Accepted: 2016/09/21 | Published: 2018/07/8
References
1. Kaiser, D.E., J.J. Wiersma and J.A. Anderson. 2014. Genotype and environment variation in elemental composition of spring wheat flag leaves. Agronomy Journal, 106: 324- 336. [DOI:10.2134/agronj2013.0329]
2. Crossa, J., H.G. Gauch and R.W. Zobel. 1990. Additive main effects and multiplicative interaction analysis of two international maiz cultivar trials. Crop Science, 30: 493-500. [DOI:10.2135/cropsci1990.0011183X003000030003x]
3. Peterson, C.J., M. Moffatt and J.R. Erickson. 1997. Yield stability of hybrid vs. pure line hard winter wheats in regional performance trials. Crop Science, 37: 116- 120. [DOI:10.2135/cropsci1997.0011183X003700010019x]
4. Francis, T.R. and L.W. Kannenberg. 1978. Yield stability sudies in short-season Maize: 1.A descriptive method for grouping genotypes. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 58: 1029-1034. [DOI:10.4141/cjps78-157]
5. Yates, F. and W.G. Cochran. 1938. The analysis of groups of experiments. Journal of Agricultural Science, 28: 556-580. [DOI:10.1017/S0021859600050978]
6. Eberhart, S.A. and W.A. Russell. 1966. Stability parameters for comparing varieties. Crop Science, 6: 36-40. [DOI:10.2135/cropsci1966.0011183X000600010011x]
7. Finlay, K.W. and G.N. Wilkinson. 1963. The analysis of adaptation in a plant breeding program. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 14: 742-754. [DOI:10.1071/AR9630742]
8. Wricke, G. 1962. Uber eine methode zur refassung der okologischen streubretite in feldversuchen, Flazenzuecht, 47: 92-96.
9. Shukla, G.K. 1972. Some statistical aspects of partitioning genotype-environmental components of variability. Heredity, 29: 237-245. [DOI:10.1038/hdy.1972.87]
10. Gauch, H.G. and R.W. Zobel. 1988. Predictive and postdictive success of statistical analyses of yield trials. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 76: 1-10. [DOI:10.1007/BF00288824]
11. Annicchiarico, P., L. Russi, E. Piano and F. Veronesi. 2006. Cultivar adaptation across Italian locations in four turfgrass species. Crop Science, 46: 264-272. [DOI:10.2135/cropsci2005.0047]
12. Moreno-Gonzalez, J., J. Crossa and P.L. Cornelius. 2004. Genotype x environment interaction in multi-environment trials using shrinkage factors for AMMI models. Euphytica, 137: 119-127. [DOI:10.1023/B:EUPH.0000040509.61017.94]
13. Yan, W., M.S. Kang, B. Ma, S. Woods and P.L. Cornelius. 2007. GGE biplot vs. AMMI analysis of genotype-by-environment data. Crop Science, 47: 643-655. [DOI:10.2135/cropsci2006.06.0374]
14. Basford, K.E. and M. Cooper. 1998. Genotype by environment interactions andsome considerations of their implication for wheat breeding in Australia. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 49: 154-175. [DOI:10.1071/A97035]
15. Gauch, H.G. 1992. Statistical Analysis of Regional Trials. AMMI Analysis of Factorial Designs. Elsevier Pub. Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 51: 242-244. [DOI:10.1016/0308-521X(96)86769-2]
16. Gauch, H.G. and R.W. Zobel. 1997. Identifying mega-environments and targeting genotypes. Crop Science, 37: 311-326. [DOI:10.2135/cropsci1997.0011183X003700020002x]
17. Tarakanovas, P. and V. Ruzgas. 2006. Additive main effect and multiplicative interaction analysis of grain yield of wheat varieties in Lithuania. Agronomy Research, 4: 91-98.
18. Mohammadinejad, G. and A.M. Rezai. 2005. Analysis of genotype × environment interaction and study of oat (Avena sativa L.) genotypes pattern. Journal of Science and Technology of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 9:77-89 (In Persian).
19. Farshadfar, E. and J. Sutka. 2006. Biplot analysis of genotype-environment interaction in durum wheat using the AMMI model. Acta Agronomica Hungarica, 54: 459-467. [DOI:10.1556/AAgr.54.2006.4.8]
20. Motzo, R., F. Guinta and M. deidda. 1962. Factors affecting thegenotype× environment interaction in spring triticale grown in Mediterranean environment. Euphytica, 121: 317-324. [DOI:10.1023/A:1012077701206]
21. Karimi Zadeh, R., H. Dehghani and Z. Dehghanpour. 2008. Use of AMMI method for estimating genotype × environment interaction in early maturing corn hybrids. Seed Plant Improve, 23: 531-546 (In Persian).
22. Albert, J. A. 2004. Comparison of Statistical Methods to Describe Genotype x Environment Interaction and Yield Stability in Multi-Location Maize Trials. M.Sc. Thesis, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein.
23. Esmailzadeh, M., M. Moghaddam, M. Zakizadeh, H. Akbari-Moghaddam, M. Abedini-Esfahlani, M. Sayahfar, A.R. Nikzad, S. Tabib-Ghafari, M. Lotfi and G.A. Ayene. 2011. Genotype × environment interaction and stability of grain yield of bread wheat genotypes in dry and warm areas of Iran. Seed Plant Improve, 27: 257-273 (In Persian).
Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA
Send email to the article author

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

© 2024 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Journal of Crop Breeding

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb