Statistical analysis for genotype stability and adaptability in maize yield based on environment and genotype interaction models
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X32873Keywords:
AMMI analysis, GGE biplot, Cultivar recommendationsAbstract
Current analysis investigates genotype x environment interaction and stability performance of grain yield with nine maize genotypes in seven environments. ANOVA revealed highly significant (p-value<0.001) data for genotypes, environments and their interactions. Only PC1 (45.4%) and PC2 (35%) were significant (p ≤ 0.05). Genotype G7 had a specific adaptation to environment E7, whereas genotypes G2 and G3 were adapted to environment E1, and genotypes G8 and G9 to environment E5. Dataset was divided into group A, composed of E5 and E7, and group B composed of E1, E2, E3 and E6. Genotypes G1, G2, G3 and G6, belonging to group B, were the most productive. Further, no environment fell into the G4, G5, G7, G8 and G9 sectors, denoting these genotypes as the poorest ones across environments. GGE biplot indicated that genotype G4 was highly unstable, whereas G3 very stable. In addition, G2 was more desirable due to its small contribution to both G and GE. On the other hand, G4 and G9 were more undesirable due to large contribution to either G or GE. Finally, genotypes G2 and G9 were very different. Their dissimilarity may be due to difference in mean yield and/or in GEI.
Downloads
References
Akter, A.; Hasan, M. J.; Kulsum, M. U.; Rahman, M. H.; Paul, A. K.; Lipi, L. F.; Akter, S. 2015. Genotype × Environment Interaction and Yield Stability Analysis in Hybrid Rice (Oryza sativa L.) By AMMI Biplot. Bangladesh Rice Journal, 19 (2): 79-86.
Alwala, S.; Kwolek, T.; McPherson, M.; Pellow, J.; Meyer, D. 2010. A comprehensive comparison between Eberhart and Russell joint regression and GGE biplot analyses to identify stable and high yielding maize hybrids. Field Crops Research, 119: 225-230.
Benin, G.; Bornhofen, E.; Beche, E.; Pagliosa, E. S.; Silva, C. L.; Pinnow, C. 2012. Agronomic performance of wheat cultivars in response to nitrogen fertilization levels. Acta Scientiarum. Agronomy, 34 (3): 275-283.
Bergamaschi, H.; Dalmago, G. A.; Comiran, F.; Bergonci, J. I.; Müller, A. G.; França, S.; Santos, A. O.; Radin, B.; Bianchi, C. A. M.; Pereira, P. G. 2006. Water deficit and yield in maize crops. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira, 41: 243-249.
Bornhofen, E.; Benin, G.; Storck, L.; Woyann, L. G.; Duarte, T.; Stoco, M. G.; Marchioro, S. V. 2017. Statistical methods to study adaptability and stability of wheat genotypes. Bragantia, 76 (1): 1-10.
Bose, L. K.; Jambhulkar, N. N.; Pande, K.; Singh, O. N. 2014. Use of AMMI and other stability statistics in the simultaneous selection of rice genotypes for yield and stability under direct-seeded conditions. Chilean Journal of Agricultural Research, 74 (1): 3-9.
Carvalho, I. R.; Nardino, M.; Demari, G. H.; Bahry, C. A.; Szareski, V. J.; Pelissari, G.; Ferrari, M.; de Pelegrin, A. J.; de Oliveira, A. C.; da Maia, L. C.; de Souza, V. Q. 2016. Bi-segmented regression, factor analysis and AMMI applied to the analysis of adaptability and stability of soybean. Australian Journal of Crop Science, 10 (10): 1410-1416.
Choudhary, V. K.; Kumar, P. S. 2013. Maize production, economics and soil productivity under different organic source of nutrients in eastern Himalayan region, India. International Journal of Plant Production, 7 (2): 167-186.
Cornelius, P. L.; Crossa, J.; Seyedsadr, M. S. 1996. Statistical tests and estimators for multiplicative models for genotype-by-environment interaction. In M.S. Kang and H.G. Gauch, Jr. (ed.). Genotype-by-environment interaction. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Daryanto, S.; Wang, L.; Jacinthe, P-A. 2016. Global Synthesis of Drought Effects on Maize and Wheat Production. PLOS ONE 11(5): e0156362.
Dingkuhn, M.; Luquet, D.; Kim, H.; Tambour, L.; Clement-Vidal, A. 2006. Ecomeristem, a model of morphogenesis and competition among sinks in rice.2 - Simulating genotype responses to phosphorus deficiency. Functional Plant Biology, 33: 325-337
Flint-Garcia, S. A.; Thuillet, A. C.; Yu, J.; Pressoir, G.; Romero, S. M.; Mitchell, S. E.; Doebley, J.; Kresovich, S.; Goodman, M. M.; Buckler, E. S. 2005. Maize association population: a high-resolution platform for quantitative trait locus dissection. The Plant Journal, 44 (6): 1054-64.
Forkman, J.; Piepho, H-P. 2014. Parametric bootstrap methods for testing multiplicative terms in GGE and AMMI models. Biometric Methodology, 70 (3): 639-647.
Gauch, H. G. 2006. Statistical Analysis of Yield Trials by AMMI and GGE. Crop Science, 46: 1488-1500.
Gauch, H. G.; Zobel, R. W. 1996. Optimal replication in selection experiments. Crop Science, 36: 838-843.
Gauch, H. G.; Zobel, R. W. 1997. Identifying mega-environments and targeting genotypes. Crop Science, 37: 311-326.
Hongyu, K.; García-Peña, M.; Araújo, L. B.; Dias, C. T. S. 2014. Statistical analysis of yield trials by AMMI analysis of genotype × environment interaction. Biometrical Letters, 51 (2): 89-102.
Ishaq, M.; Rahman, H.; Hassan, G.; Iqbal, M.; Khalil, I. A.; Khan, S. A.; Khan, S. A.; Rafiullah; Hussain, J. 2015. Genetic Potential, Variability and Heritability of Various Morphological and Yield Traits among Maize Synthetics. Electronic Journal of Biology, 11 (4): 187-191.
Matsuoka, Y., Vigouroux, Y., Goodman, M., Sanchez, G.J., Buckler, E., Doebley, J., 2002. A single domestication for maize shown by multilocus microsatellite genotyping. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 99 (9): 6080–6084.
McMullen, M. D.; Kresovich, S.; Villeda, H. S.; Bradbury, P.; Li, H.; Sun, Q.; Flint-Garcia, S.; Thornsberry, J.; Acharya, C.; Bottoms, C.; Brown, P.; Browne, C.; Eller, M.; Guill, K.; Harjes, C.; Kroon, D.; Lepak, N.; Mitchell, S. E.; Peterson, B.; Pressoir, G.; Romero, S.; Rosas, M. O.; Salvo, S.; Yates, H.; Hanson, M.; Jones, E.; Smith, S.; Glaubitz, J. C.; Goodman, M.; Ware, D.; Holland, J. B.; Buckler, E. S. 2009. Genetic Properties of the Maize Nested Association Mapping Population. Science, 325: 737.
Mohamed, N. E. M. 2013. Genotype by environment interactions for grain yield in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Journal of Plant Breeding and Crop Science, 5: 150-157.
Ortiz, R.; Taba, S.; Chavez Tovar, V. H.; Mezzalama, M.; Yunbi Xu; Jianbing Yan; Crouch, J. H. 2010. Conserving and enhancing maize genetic resources as global public goods - A perspective from CIMMYT. Crop Science, 50 (1): 13-28.
Pereira, H. S.; Bueno, L. G.; Del Peloso, M. J.; Abreu, A. F. B.; Moreira, J. A. A.; Martins, M.; Wendland, A.; Faria, L. C.; Souza, T. L. P. O.; Melo, L. C. 2014. Agronomic performance and stability of Andean common bean lines with white grains in Brazil. Bragantia, 73 (2): 130-137.
R Core Team (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/.
Ranum, P.; Peña-Rosas, J. P.; Garcia-Casal, M. N. 2014. Global maize production, utilization, and consumption. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1312: 105-112.
Ray, D. K.; Gerber, J. S.; MacDonald, G. K.; West, P. C. 2015. Climate variation explains a third of global crop yield variability. Nature Communications, 6: 5989.
Rótolo, G. C.; Francis, C.; Craviottoa, R. M.; Ulgiati, S. Environmental assessment of maize production alternatives: Traditional, intensive and GMO-based cropping patterns. Ecological Indicators, 57: 48-60, 2015.
Sharma, S.; Gupta, J. P.; Nagi, H. P. S.; Kumar, R. 2012. Effect of incorporation of corn byproducts on quality of baked and extruded products from wheat flour and semolina. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 49 (5): 580-586.
Shewry, P., 2007. Improving the protein content and composition of cereal grain. Journal of Cereal Science 46, 239-250.
Silveira, L. C. I.; Kist, V.; Paula, T. O. M.; Barbosa, M. H. P.; Peternelli, L. A.; Daros, E. 2013. AMMI analysis to evaluate the adaptability and phenotypic stability of sugarcane genotypes. Scientia Agricola, 70 (1): 27-32.
Tenaillon, M. I.; Sawkins, M. C.; Long, A. D.; Gaut, R. L.; Doebley, J. F.; Gaut, B. S. 2001. Patterns of DNA sequence polymorphism along chromosome 1 of maize (Zea mays ssp. mays L.). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 98 (16), 9161-9166.
Wallace, J. G.; Larsson, S. J.; Buckler, E. S. 2014. Entering the second century of maize quantitative genetics. Heredity, 112: 30-38.
Wang, X.; Wang, H.; Liu, S.; Ferjani, A.; Li, J.; Yan, J.; Yang, X.; Qin, F. 2016. Genetic variation in ZmVPP1 contributes to drought tolerance in maize seedlings. Nature Genetics, 48: 1233-1241.
Wei, F.; Coe, E.; Nelson, W.; Bharti, A. K.; Engler, F.; Butler, E.; Kim, H.; Goicoechea, J. L.; Chen, M.; Lee, S.; Fuks, G.; Sanchez-Villeda, H.; Schroeder, S.; Fang, Z.; McMullen, M.; Davis, G.; Bowers, J. E.; Paterson, A. H.; Schaeffer, M.; Gardiner, J.; Cone, K.; Messing, J.; Soderlund, C.; Wing, R. A. 2007. Physical and Genetic Structure of the Maize Genome Reflects Its Complex Evolutionary History. PLoS Genetics, 3 (7): e123.
Wright, S. I.; Vroh Bi, I.; Schroeder, S. G.; Yamasaki, M.; Doebley, J. F.; McMullen, M. D.; Gaut B S. 2005. The effects of artificial selection on the maize genome. Science, 308 (5726): 1310-1314.
Yan, W. 2011. GGE biplot vs. AMMI graphs for Genotypes-by-Environments Data Analysis. Journal of the Indian Society of Agricultural Statistics, 65 (2): 181-193.
Yan, W. K.; Hunt, L. A.; Sheng, Q. L.; Szlavnics, Z. 2000. Cultivar evaluation and mega-environment investigation based on the GGE Biplot. Crop Science, 40: 597-605.
Yan, W.; & Rajcan, I. 2002. Biplot evaluation of test sites and trait relations of soybean in Ontario. Crop Science, 42: 11-20.
Yan, W.; Cornelius, P. L.; Crossa, J.; Hunt, L. A. 2001. Two Types of GGE Biplots for Analyzing Multi-Environment Trial Data. Crop Science, 41: 656-663.
Yan, W.; Kang, M. S. 2003. GGE Biplot Analysis: A graphical tool for breeders, geneticists, and agronomists. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Yan, W.; Tinker, A. 2006. Biplot analysis of multi environment trial data: principles and applications. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 86 (3): 623-645.
Zobel R. W.; Wright, M. J.; Gauch, H. G. 1988. Statistical analysis of a yield trial. Agronomy Journal, 80: 388-393.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
