GxE Interactions Analysis of Wheat Genotypes Evaluated Under Peninsular Zone of the Country by AMMI Model

Ajay Verma; Gyanendra Pratap Singh

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ajaf.20210901.15

| Peer-Reviewed

GxE Interactions Analysis of Wheat Genotypes Evaluated Under Peninsular Zone of the Country by AMMI Model

Ajay Verma, Gyanendra Pratap Singh

Published in American Journal of Agriculture and Forestry (Volume 9, Issue 1)

Received: 7 December 2020 Accepted: 31 December 2020 Published: 30 January 2021

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

AMMI analysis of wheat genotypes had highlighted significant effects of environments, interactions and genotypes for the 2017-18 and 2018-19. Number of adaptability measures had been studied as per utilization of number of significant interaction principal components (IPCs). Total of interaction variations exploited by Type-1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 measures were 45.5%, 66.3%, 75.9% & 88.4% respectively. Type-1 measures EV1, D1, ASTAB1 identified (G7, G6, G12) genotypes while SIPC1 selected (G14, G17, G2). EV2, D2, ASTAB2, ASV and ASV1 measures found (G7, G6, G4) as desirable genotypes. Analytic measures based on all significant IPCA’s i.e. MASV and MASV1 settled for G6, G7, and G3. Adaptability measures GAI, HM, PRVG & MHPRVG observed G13, G4, and G12 genotypes would be of stable adaptations. Biplot analysis seen largest cluster comprised D3, D5, EV2, EV3, EV5, ASTAB3, ASTAB5, MASV1, MASV and Standard deviation measures. Genotypes were ranked G9, G11, and G6 by values of EV1, D1 & ASTAB1 for second year of study. D2, ASV, ASV1, EV2 & ASTAB2 observed (G9, G6, and G11) as adaptable genotypes. MASV & MASV1 measures also supported G9, G6, G11 genotypes for the considered locations of the zone. Studied measures were clustered in three groups in graphical analysis. Three clusters were observed among studied measures by biplot analysis. Measures EV1, EV2, EV3, D1, D2, D3, ASV, ASV1, MASV, MASV1, ASTAB1, and ASTAB2 & ASTAB3 formed largest cluster.

Published in	American Journal of Agriculture and Forestry (Volume 9, Issue 1)
DOI	10.11648/j.ajaf.20210901.15
Page(s)	29-36
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

AMMI, BLUP, PRVG, MHPRVG, Biplots

References

[1]	Agahi K., JafarAhmadi, Hassan AmiriOghan, Mohammad HosseinFotokian and SedighehFabriki Orang (2020)Analysis of genotype × environment interaction for seed yield in spring oilseed rape using the AMMI model. Crop Breeding and Applied Biotechnology 20 (1): e26502012
[2]	Ajay B C, Aravind J, Fiyaz R Abdul, Kumar Narendra, LalChuni, Gangadhar K, Kona Praveen, Dagla M C and Bera S K (2019) Rectification of modified AMMI stability value (MASV). Indian J Genet. 79 (4): 726-731.
[3]	Akbarpour O, Dehghani H, Sorkhi B, Guach G (2014) Evaluation of Genotype × Environment Interaction in Barley (HordeumVulgare L.) Based on AMMI model Using Developed SAS Program. J AgricSci Tech. 16: 919-930.
[4]	Annicchiarico P (1997) Joint regression vs AMMI analysis of genotype × environment interactions for cereals in Italy. Euphytica 94: 53–62.
[5]	Bocianowsk J, Warzecha T, Nowosad K, &Bathelt R (2019) Genotype by environment interaction using AMMI model and estimation of additive and epistasis gene effects for 1000-kernel weight in spring barley (Hordeumvulgare L.). Journal of Applied Genetics, 60: 127–135.
[6]	Gauch HG (2013) A Simple Protocol for AMMI Analysis of Yield Trials. Crop Science 53: 1860-1869.
[7]	Guilly, S., Thomas, D., Audrey, T., Laurent, B., & Jean-Yves, H. (2017). Analysis of multi environment trials (MET) in the sugarcane breeding program of Re´union Island. Euphytica, 213, 213.
[8]	Hongyu K, García-Peña M, de Araújo LB and dos Santos Dias CT (2014) Statistical analysis of yield trials by AMMI analysis of genotype× environment interaction. Biometrical letters 51: 89-102.
[9]	Kendal E, Tekdal S(2016) Application of AMMI Model for Evolution Spring Barley Genotypes in Multi-Environment Trials. Bangladesh J. Bot. 45 (3): 613-620.
[10]	Mohammadi R and Amri A(2008) Comparison of parametric and non-parametric methods for selecting stable and adapted durum wheat genotypes in variable environments. Euphytica 159: 419-432.
[11]	Purchase JL (1997) Parametric analysis to describe G × E interaction and yield stability in winter wheat. Ph.D. thesis. Dep. of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, Univ. of the Orange Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.
[12]	Purchase, J. L., Hatting, H., & Van Deventer, C. S. (2000). Genotype x environment interaction of winter wheat (T.aestivum) in South Africa: Stability analysis of yield performance. South African Journal of Plant and Soil, 17 (3), 101–107.
[13]	Rao AR, Prabhakaran VT (2005) Use of AMMI in simultaneous selection of genotypes for yield and stability. Journal of the Indian Society of Agricultural Statistics 59: 76-82.
[14]	Resende MDV de andDuarte JB. 2007. Precision and quality control in variety trials. PesquisaAgropecuaria Tropical. 37 (3): 182-194.
[15]	Shahriari Z, Heidari B, Dadkhodaie A (2018) Dissection of genotype × environment interactions for mucilage and seed yield in Plantago species: Application of AMMI and GGE biplot analyses. PLoS ONE 13 (5): e0196095
[16]	Sneller CH, Kilgore-Norquest L, Dombek D (1997) Repeatability of yield stability statistics in soybean. Crop Science, 37: 383-390.
[17]	Tadesse T, Sefera G and Tekalign A (2018) Genotypes Environment interaction analysis for Ethiopian mustard (Brassica carinata L.) genotypes using AMMI model. Journal of Plant Breeding and Crop Science 10: 86-92.
[18]	Tekdal S, Kendal E (2018) AMMI Model to Assess Durum Wheat Genotypes in Multi-Environment Trials. J AgrSci Tech. 20: 153-166.
[19]	Yang, R.-C., J. Crossa, P. L. Cornelius, and J. Burgueño. 2009. Biplot analysis of genotype x environment interaction: Proceed with caution. Crop Sci. 49: 1564–1576.
[20]	Zali H, Farshadfar E, Sabaghpour SH, Karimizadeh R (2012) Evaluation of genotype × environment interaction in chickpea using measures of stability from AMMI model. Annals of Biological Research 3 (7): 3126-3136.
[21]	Zobel R(1994) Stress resistance and root systems. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Adaptation of Plants to Serious Stresses. 1–4 August. INTSORMIL Publication 94-2, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Recourses. Lincoln, USA: University of Nebraska.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Ajay Verma, Gyanendra Pratap Singh. (2021). GxE Interactions Analysis of Wheat Genotypes Evaluated Under Peninsular Zone of the Country by AMMI Model. American Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 9(1), 29-36. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajaf.20210901.15

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Ajay Verma; Gyanendra Pratap Singh. GxE Interactions Analysis of Wheat Genotypes Evaluated Under Peninsular Zone of the Country by AMMI Model. Am. J. Agric. For. 2021, 9(1), 29-36. doi: 10.11648/j.ajaf.20210901.15

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Ajay Verma, Gyanendra Pratap Singh. GxE Interactions Analysis of Wheat Genotypes Evaluated Under Peninsular Zone of the Country by AMMI Model. Am J Agric For. 2021;9(1):29-36. doi: 10.11648/j.ajaf.20210901.15

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ajaf.20210901.15,
  author = {Ajay Verma and Gyanendra Pratap Singh},
  title = {GxE Interactions Analysis of Wheat Genotypes Evaluated Under Peninsular Zone of the Country by AMMI Model},
  journal = {American Journal of Agriculture and Forestry},
  volume = {9},
  number = {1},
  pages = {29-36},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ajaf.20210901.15},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajaf.20210901.15},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajaf.20210901.15},
  abstract = {AMMI analysis of wheat genotypes had highlighted significant effects of environments, interactions and genotypes for the 2017-18 and 2018-19. Number of adaptability measures had been studied as per utilization of number of significant interaction principal components (IPCs). Total of interaction variations exploited by Type-1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 measures were 45.5%, 66.3%, 75.9% & 88.4% respectively. Type-1 measures EV1, D1, ASTAB1 identified (G7, G6, G12) genotypes while SIPC1 selected (G14, G17, G2). EV2, D2, ASTAB2, ASV and ASV1 measures found (G7, G6, G4) as desirable genotypes. Analytic measures based on all significant IPCA’s i.e. MASV and MASV1 settled for G6, G7, and G3. Adaptability measures GAI, HM, PRVG & MHPRVG observed G13, G4, and G12 genotypes would be of stable adaptations. Biplot analysis seen largest cluster comprised D3, D5, EV2, EV3, EV5, ASTAB3, ASTAB5, MASV1, MASV and Standard deviation measures. Genotypes were ranked G9, G11, and G6 by values of EV1, D1 & ASTAB1 for second year of study. D2, ASV, ASV1, EV2 & ASTAB2 observed (G9, G6, and G11) as adaptable genotypes. MASV & MASV1 measures also supported G9, G6, G11 genotypes for the considered locations of the zone. Studied measures were clustered in three groups in graphical analysis. Three clusters were observed among studied measures by biplot analysis. Measures EV1, EV2, EV3, D1, D2, D3, ASV, ASV1, MASV, MASV1, ASTAB1, and ASTAB2 & ASTAB3 formed largest cluster.},
 year = {2021}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - GxE Interactions Analysis of Wheat Genotypes Evaluated Under Peninsular Zone of the Country by AMMI Model
AU  - Ajay Verma
AU  - Gyanendra Pratap Singh
Y1  - 2021/01/30
PY  - 2021
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajaf.20210901.15
DO  - 10.11648/j.ajaf.20210901.15
T2  - American Journal of Agriculture and Forestry
JF  - American Journal of Agriculture and Forestry
JO  - American Journal of Agriculture and Forestry
SP  - 29
EP  - 36
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-8591
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajaf.20210901.15
AB  - AMMI analysis of wheat genotypes had highlighted significant effects of environments, interactions and genotypes for the 2017-18 and 2018-19. Number of adaptability measures had been studied as per utilization of number of significant interaction principal components (IPCs). Total of interaction variations exploited by Type-1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 measures were 45.5%, 66.3%, 75.9% & 88.4% respectively. Type-1 measures EV1, D1, ASTAB1 identified (G7, G6, G12) genotypes while SIPC1 selected (G14, G17, G2). EV2, D2, ASTAB2, ASV and ASV1 measures found (G7, G6, G4) as desirable genotypes. Analytic measures based on all significant IPCA’s i.e. MASV and MASV1 settled for G6, G7, and G3. Adaptability measures GAI, HM, PRVG & MHPRVG observed G13, G4, and G12 genotypes would be of stable adaptations. Biplot analysis seen largest cluster comprised D3, D5, EV2, EV3, EV5, ASTAB3, ASTAB5, MASV1, MASV and Standard deviation measures. Genotypes were ranked G9, G11, and G6 by values of EV1, D1 & ASTAB1 for second year of study. D2, ASV, ASV1, EV2 & ASTAB2 observed (G9, G6, and G11) as adaptable genotypes. MASV & MASV1 measures also supported G9, G6, G11 genotypes for the considered locations of the zone. Studied measures were clustered in three groups in graphical analysis. Three clusters were observed among studied measures by biplot analysis. Measures EV1, EV2, EV3, D1, D2, D3, ASV, ASV1, MASV, MASV1, ASTAB1, and ASTAB2 & ASTAB3 formed largest cluster.
VL  - 9
IS  - 1
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Ajay Verma

Crop Improvement Division, Indian Council of Agricultural Research-Indian Institute of Wheat & Barley Research, Karnal, India
Gyanendra Pratap Singh

Crop Improvement Division, Indian Council of Agricultural Research-Indian Institute of Wheat & Barley Research, Karnal, India

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Ajay Verma, Gyanendra Pratap Singh. (2021). GxE Interactions Analysis of Wheat Genotypes Evaluated Under Peninsular Zone of the Country by AMMI Model. American Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 9(1), 29-36. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajaf.20210901.15

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Ajay Verma; Gyanendra Pratap Singh. GxE Interactions Analysis of Wheat Genotypes Evaluated Under Peninsular Zone of the Country by AMMI Model. Am. J. Agric. For. 2021, 9(1), 29-36. doi: 10.11648/j.ajaf.20210901.15

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Ajay Verma, Gyanendra Pratap Singh. GxE Interactions Analysis of Wheat Genotypes Evaluated Under Peninsular Zone of the Country by AMMI Model. Am J Agric For. 2021;9(1):29-36. doi: 10.11648/j.ajaf.20210901.15

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ajaf.20210901.15,
  author = {Ajay Verma and Gyanendra Pratap Singh},
  title = {GxE Interactions Analysis of Wheat Genotypes Evaluated Under Peninsular Zone of the Country by AMMI Model},
  journal = {American Journal of Agriculture and Forestry},
  volume = {9},
  number = {1},
  pages = {29-36},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ajaf.20210901.15},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajaf.20210901.15},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajaf.20210901.15},
  abstract = {AMMI analysis of wheat genotypes had highlighted significant effects of environments, interactions and genotypes for the 2017-18 and 2018-19. Number of adaptability measures had been studied as per utilization of number of significant interaction principal components (IPCs). Total of interaction variations exploited by Type-1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 measures were 45.5%, 66.3%, 75.9% & 88.4% respectively. Type-1 measures EV1, D1, ASTAB1 identified (G7, G6, G12) genotypes while SIPC1 selected (G14, G17, G2). EV2, D2, ASTAB2, ASV and ASV1 measures found (G7, G6, G4) as desirable genotypes. Analytic measures based on all significant IPCA’s i.e. MASV and MASV1 settled for G6, G7, and G3. Adaptability measures GAI, HM, PRVG & MHPRVG observed G13, G4, and G12 genotypes would be of stable adaptations. Biplot analysis seen largest cluster comprised D3, D5, EV2, EV3, EV5, ASTAB3, ASTAB5, MASV1, MASV and Standard deviation measures. Genotypes were ranked G9, G11, and G6 by values of EV1, D1 & ASTAB1 for second year of study. D2, ASV, ASV1, EV2 & ASTAB2 observed (G9, G6, and G11) as adaptable genotypes. MASV & MASV1 measures also supported G9, G6, G11 genotypes for the considered locations of the zone. Studied measures were clustered in three groups in graphical analysis. Three clusters were observed among studied measures by biplot analysis. Measures EV1, EV2, EV3, D1, D2, D3, ASV, ASV1, MASV, MASV1, ASTAB1, and ASTAB2 & ASTAB3 formed largest cluster.},
 year = {2021}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - GxE Interactions Analysis of Wheat Genotypes Evaluated Under Peninsular Zone of the Country by AMMI Model
AU  - Ajay Verma
AU  - Gyanendra Pratap Singh
Y1  - 2021/01/30
PY  - 2021
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajaf.20210901.15
DO  - 10.11648/j.ajaf.20210901.15
T2  - American Journal of Agriculture and Forestry
JF  - American Journal of Agriculture and Forestry
JO  - American Journal of Agriculture and Forestry
SP  - 29
EP  - 36
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-8591
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajaf.20210901.15
AB  - AMMI analysis of wheat genotypes had highlighted significant effects of environments, interactions and genotypes for the 2017-18 and 2018-19. Number of adaptability measures had been studied as per utilization of number of significant interaction principal components (IPCs). Total of interaction variations exploited by Type-1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 measures were 45.5%, 66.3%, 75.9% & 88.4% respectively. Type-1 measures EV1, D1, ASTAB1 identified (G7, G6, G12) genotypes while SIPC1 selected (G14, G17, G2). EV2, D2, ASTAB2, ASV and ASV1 measures found (G7, G6, G4) as desirable genotypes. Analytic measures based on all significant IPCA’s i.e. MASV and MASV1 settled for G6, G7, and G3. Adaptability measures GAI, HM, PRVG & MHPRVG observed G13, G4, and G12 genotypes would be of stable adaptations. Biplot analysis seen largest cluster comprised D3, D5, EV2, EV3, EV5, ASTAB3, ASTAB5, MASV1, MASV and Standard deviation measures. Genotypes were ranked G9, G11, and G6 by values of EV1, D1 & ASTAB1 for second year of study. D2, ASV, ASV1, EV2 & ASTAB2 observed (G9, G6, and G11) as adaptable genotypes. MASV & MASV1 measures also supported G9, G6, G11 genotypes for the considered locations of the zone. Studied measures were clustered in three groups in graphical analysis. Three clusters were observed among studied measures by biplot analysis. Measures EV1, EV2, EV3, D1, D2, D3, ASV, ASV1, MASV, MASV1, ASTAB1, and ASTAB2 & ASTAB3 formed largest cluster.
VL  - 9
IS  - 1
ER  -

Copy | Download