Research Article

Simultaneous Use of AMMI Model and Yield for Stability Analysis of Wheat Genotypes Evaluated Under Central Zone of the India

Ajay Verma
ICAR-Indian Institute of Wheat & Barley Research, India
* Corresponding author
Gyanendra Pratap Singh
ICAR-Indian Institute of Wheat & Barley Research, India
DOI icon 10.24018/ejfood.2020.2.6.167

Read Counter
447

Downloads
349

Citations

Share

Article Sidebar

Submitted 2020-11-05
Published 2020-11-16

Read counter = 447 times

Table of Contents

Article Main Content

AMMI analysis had observed highly significant effects of environment (E), GxE interaction and genotypes (G) during 2018-19 and 2019-20 years of study. Suitability of PBW822, HI8811 & HI8713 genotypes as compared to HD3345 by WAASB measure for first year. Superiority index found HD3345, PBW822 & NIDW1158 as of stable performance with high yield. PRVG measures settled for HI8811, GW322 & HI 8737 and MHPRVG considered HI8811, HI8713 & GW322 wheat genotypes. All negative values of correlations exhibited by SI measure whereas WAASB measure exhibited direct relationships as well as negative values with SI, PRVG, MHPRVG and yield. WAASB measure observed suitability of GW513, HI1636 & MACS6747 wheat genotypes for the second year. Superiority index found GW513, HI1636 & HI1544 as of stable performance along with high yield. PRVG as well as MHPRVG measures observed suitability of GW513, HI1636, & MP1361 while HD3377 as unstable wheat genotype. SI measure had expressed only indirect relations of high degree with other measures except of positive values with yield, PRVG and MHPRVG. Measure WAASB had exhibited direct relations with most of measures along with negative correlation for SI, yield, PRVG and MHPRVG values. Stability measures by simultaneous use of AMMI analysis and average yield of genotypes would be more meaningful as compared to measures based either on the AMMI or yield only.

Keywords: AMMI analysis, EV, SI, WAASB, Za

References

  1. H.G. Gauch,“A simple protocol for AMMI analysis of yield trials”. Crop Science, vol. 53, pp.1860–1869, 2013.
     Google Scholar
  2. J. Bocianowski, J. Niemann, and K. Nowosad, “Genotype-by environment interaction for seed quality traits in interspecific cross-derived Brassica lines using additive main effects and multiplicative interaction model”. Euphytica, vol. 215(7) , pp.1–13,2019.
     Google Scholar
  3. L.D. Veenstra, N. Santantonio, J.L. Jannink, and M.E. Sorrells, “Influence of genotype and environment on wheat grain fructan content”. Crop Science, 59:190–198, 2019.
     Google Scholar
  4. H. Zali, E, Farshadfar, S.H. Sabaghpour, R. Karimizadeh, “Evaluation of genotype × environment interaction in chickpea using measures of stability from AMMI model”. Ann. Biol. Res. vol. 3, pp.3126–3136, 2012.
     Google Scholar
  5. B. C. Ajay, J. Aravind, R. Abdul Fiyaz, Narendra Kumar, Chuni Lal, K. Gangadhar, Praveen Kona, M. C. Dagla, and S. K. Bera, “Rectification of modified AMMI stability value (MASV) ” Indian J. Genet. vol. 79(4), pp. 726-731, 2019.
     Google Scholar
  6. T. Olivoto, 2018. WAASB data, Mendeley Data, v2. doi. org/10.17632/2sjz32k3s3.2
     Google Scholar
  7. T. Olivoto, A. Dal’Col Lucio, Silva J.A. da Gonzalez, and V.S. Marchioro, “Mean performance and stability in multi-environment trials I: Combining features of AMMI and BLUP techniques”. Agronomy Journal vol. 111, pp.:1–12, 2019.
     Google Scholar
  8. T. Olivoto, 2019, “Metan: multi environment trials analysis. R package version 1.1.0. https://github.com/TiagoOlivoto/metan.
     Google Scholar
  9. R.W. Zobel, M.J. Wright, and H.G. Jr. Gauch, “Statistical analysis of yield trial”. Agronomy Journal vol. 80, pp.388-393, 1988.
     Google Scholar
  10. C.H., Sneller, L. Kilgore-Norquest, and D. Dombek. “Repeatability of yield stability statistics in soybean”. Crop Science, vol. 37:383–390, 1997.
     Google Scholar
  11. J.L. Purchase, H. Hatting, and C.S. van Deventer, “Genotype × environment interaction of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in South Africa: II. Stability analysis of yield performance”. S. Afr. J. Plant Soil, vol. 17, pp.101–107, 2000.
     Google Scholar
  12. A.R. Rao, and V.T. Prabhakaran, “Use of AMMI in simultaneous selection of genotypes for yield and stability”. Journal of the Indian Society of Agricultural Statistics, vol. 59, pp.76-82, 2005.
     Google Scholar
  13. M.D.V. Resende, and J.B. Duarte, “Precision and Quality Control in Variety Trials”. Pesquisa Agropecuaria Tropical 37, pp. 182-194, 2007.
     Google Scholar
  14. M. Oyekunle, A. Menkir, H. Mani, G. Olaoye, I.S. Usman, S.G. Ado, “Stability analysis of maize cultivars adapted to tropical environments using AMMI analysis”. Cereal Res. Commun. vol. 45, pp.336–345, 2017.
     Google Scholar
  15. M.S. Kang, “Simultaneous selection for yield and stability in crop performance trials: Consequences for growers”. Agronomy Journal vol. 85, pp.754-757, 1993.
     Google Scholar
  16. E. Farshadfar, “Incorporation of AMMI stability value and grain yield in a single non-parametric index (GSI) in bread wheat”. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. vol. 11, pp.1791–1796, 2008.
     Google Scholar
  17. E. Farshadfar, N. Mahmodi and A. Yaghotipoor, “AMMI stability value and simultaneous estimation of yield and yield stability in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”. Aust. J. Crop Science, vol. 5, pp.1837–1844, 2011.
     Google Scholar
  18. R. Mohammadi, E. Farshadfarar, A. Amri, “Comparison of rank-based stability statistics for grain yield in rainfed durum wheat”. New Zealand Journal of Crop & Horticulture Science, vol. 44, pp. 25–40, 2016.
     Google Scholar