Journals / Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry / 2009 / Cilt: 33 - Sayı: 2

Interpreting Genotype × Environment Interaction in Bread Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Genotypes Using Nonparametric Measures

Pages
127–137
Publication Date
2009-02-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results also revealed that based on nonparametric test results stability could be classified into 3 groups, according to agronomic and biological concepts of stability.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The objectives of this study were to compare nonparametric stability measures, and to identify promising high-yield and stable bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes in 7 environments during 2003-2005 in the central Black Sea region of Turkey.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The bread wheat genotypes (20 advanced lines and 5 cultivars) were grown in a randomized complete block design with 4 replications in 7 different environments.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results also revealed that based on nonparametric test results stability could be classified into 3 groups, according to agronomic and biological concepts of stability.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2003-2005 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Bread wheat · genotype × environment interaction · nonparametric stability measures

Abstract

The objectives of this study were to compare nonparametric stability measures, and to identify promising high-yield and stable bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes in 7 environments during 2003-2005 in the central Black Sea region of Turkey. The bread wheat genotypes (20 advanced lines and 5 cultivars) were grown in a randomized complete block design with 4 replications in 7 different environments. Three nonparametric statistical tests of significance for genotype × environment (GE) interaction and 10 nonparametric measures of stability were used to identify stable genotypes in 7 environments. Combined ANOVA and nonparametric tests (Kubinger, Hildebrand, and De Kroon/Van der Laan) of genotype × environment interaction indicated the presence of significant crossover and non-crossover interactions, as well as significant differences between genotypes. In this study high TOP values (proportion of environments in which a genotype ranked in the top third) and low rank-sum values (sum of ranks of mean yield and Shukla’s stability variance) were associated with high mean yield. Nonetheless, results of the other nonparametric tests were negatively correlated with mean yield. In the simultaneous selection for high yield and stability, only the rank-sum and TOP methods were useful in terms of the principal component analysis (PCA) results, and correlation analysis of nonparametric stability statistics and yield. According to these stability parameters (TOP and rank-sum) G7 (VONA//KS75210/TAM101), G9 (JUP/4/CLLF/3/II14.53/ODIN//CI13431/WA 00477), G20 (Sakin), and G21 (VORONA/KAUZ//1D13.1/MLT) were the most stable genotypes for grain yield. The results also revealed that based on nonparametric test results stability could be classified into 3 groups, according to agronomic and biological concepts of stability.

Özet

The objectives of this study were to compare nonparametric stability measures, and to identify promising high-yield and stable bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes in 7 environments during 2003-2005 in the central Black Sea region of Turkey. The bread wheat genotypes (20 advanced lines and 5 cultivars) were grown in a randomized complete block design with 4 replications in 7 different environments. Three nonparametric statistical tests of significance for genotype × environment (GE) interaction and 10 nonparametric measures of stability were used to identify stable genotypes in 7 environments. Combined ANOVA and nonparametric tests (Kubinger, Hildebrand, and De Kroon/Van der Laan) of genotype × environment interaction indicated the presence of significant crossover and non-crossover interactions, as well as significant differences between genotypes. In this study high TOP values (proportion of environments in which a genotype ranked in the top third) and low rank-sum values (sum of ranks of mean yield and Shukla’s stability variance) were associated with high mean yield. Nonetheless, results of the other nonparametric tests were negatively correlated with mean yield. In the simultaneous selection for high yield and stability, only the rank-sum and TOP methods were useful in terms of the principal component analysis (PCA) results, and correlation analysis of nonparametric stability statistics and yield. According to these stability parameters (TOP and rank-sum) G7 (VONA//KS75210/TAM101), G9 (JUP/4/CLLF/3/II14.53/ODIN//CI13431/WA 00477), G20 (Sakin), and G21 (VORONA/KAUZ//1D13.1/MLT) were the most stable genotypes for grain yield. The results also revealed that based on nonparametric test results stability could be classified into 3 groups, according to agronomic and biological concepts of stability.

🔖

Cite This Article

MUT, Z., AYDIN, N., BAYRAMOĞLU, H. O., ÖZCAN, H. (2009). Interpreting Genotype × Environment Interaction in Bread Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Genotypes Using Nonparametric Measures. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, Cilt: 33 - Sayı: 2, 127–137. https://ajindex.com/articles/180227

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (19)

  1. Abdulahi, A., R. Mohammadi and S.S. Pourdad. 2007. Evaluation of safflower (Carthamus spp.) genotypes in multi-environment trials by nonparametric methods. Asian J. Plant Sci. 6: 827-832.
  2. Adugna, W. and M.T. Labuschagne. 2003. Parametric and nonparametric measures of phenotypic stability in linseed (Linum usitatissimum L.). Euphytica, 129: 211-218.
  3. Ağdağ, M.İ., M. Dok and H.M. Doğan. 1997. Orta Karadeniz Geçit Bölgesi için uygun buğday çeşitlerinin belirlenmesi üzerine bir araştırma. Türkiye II. Tarla Bitkileri Kongresi, Samsun, s. 21-25.
  4. Altınbaş, M. 2004. Kışlık nohutta verim stabilitesini belirlemede rank (sıra) değerlerinin kullanımı. Ege Üniv. Ziraat Fak. Derg. 41: 77-87.
  5. Baker, R.J. 1988. Tests for crossover genotype-environment interactions. Can. J. Plant Sci. 68: 405-410
  6. Becker, H.C. and J. Leon. 1988. Stability analysis in plant breeding. Plant Breeding, 101: 1-23.
  7. Ceccarelli, S. 1994. Specific adaptation and breeding for marginal conditions. Euphytica, 77: 205-219.
  8. De Kroon, J. and P. Van der Laan. 1981. Distribution-free test procedures in two-way layouts: A Concept of rank-interaction. Stat. Neerl. 35: 189-213.
  9. Flores, F., M.T. Moreno and J.I. Cubero. 1998. A comparison of univariate and multivariate methods to analyze environments. Field Crop Res. 56: 271-286.
  10. Fox, P.N., B. Skovmand, B.K. Thompson, H.J. Braun and R. Cormier. 1990. Yield and adaptation of hexaploid spring triticale. Euphytica. 47: 57-64.
  11. Hildebrand, H., 1980. Asymptotosch Verteilungsfreie Rangtests in linearen Modellen. Med. Inform. Stak. 17: 344-349.
  12. Huehn, M. 1990. Non-parametric measures of phenotypic stability: Part 1. Theory. Euphytica. 47: 189-194.
  13. Huehn, M. 1996. Non-parametric analysis of genotype environment interactions by ranks. In: Genotype by Environment Interaction (Eds. M.S. Kang and H.G. Gauch), CRC Press.
  14. Boca Raton, FL, pp. 213-228.
  15. Huehn, M., and J. Leon. 1995. Non-parametric analysis of cultivar performance trials: Experimental results and comparison of different procedures based on ranks. Agron. J. 87: 627-632.
  16. Kang, M.S. 1988. A rank-sum method for selecting high-yielding, stable corn genotypes. Cereal Res. Commun. 16: 113-115.
  17. Kang, M.S. 1990. Genotype-by-environment, interaction, and plant breeding. Louisiana State University, Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA, USA. Kang, M.S. 2002.
  18. Quantitative Genetics, Genomics and Plant Breeding. Cambridge, MA, USA. CABI Publishing, pp. 22-32.
  19. Kang, M.S. and H.N. Pham. 1991. Simultaneous selection for high yieldin