Parametric stability analysis of durum wheat yield (triticum durum desf)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30835/2413-7510.2019.190448Keywords:
durum wheat, yield, genotype, stability, correlationAbstract
The study purpose was to assess the phenotypic stability of 23 durum wheat genotypes using different stability parameters to identify both high-yielding and stable genotypes.
Materials and methods. The study was carried out at 4 trial sites differing in soil and hydrothermal conditions in 2008/09 - 2009/10. To quantify the yield stability, 7 statistical parameters of the stability (bi, Pi, ASVi, CVi, S2di, S2i, and W2i) were calculated.
Results and discussion. The grain yields of all the genotypes were significantly affected by growing conditions, which accounted for 88.2% of the total variance of the yield, while the contributions of the genotype and genotype-environment interactions only amounted to 2.9% and 8.9%, respectively. There were significant positive correlations between the average yield of the genotypes under investigation and the regression coefficient (bi) and between the average yield of the genotypes and the environment variance (S2i). Correlation analysis also separated Pi, bi, and S2i approaches that correlated with the average yield and ASV, W2i, and S2di approaches that evaluate the phenotypic stability of the genotypes regardless of the yield.
Conclusions. The results show that the genotypes Bel, Amg, Miki, Bss and Msb were the most stable by the majority of the statistical models used. Miki, Amg and Msb were distinguished as the best genotypes combining high yield and high stability under various conditions.
References
Sissons MJ. Role of durum wheat composition on the quality of pasta and bread. Global Science Books, 2008. P. 75–90.
Mohammadi M, Sharifi P, Karimizadeh R. Stability Analysis of durum wheat genotypes by regression parameteres in dryland conditions. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis. 2014; 62(5): 1049–1056. DOI: 10.11118/actaun201462051049.
Akcura M, Kaya Y, Taner S. Genotype-environment interaction and phenotypic stability analysis for grain yield of durum wheat in the Central Anatolian Region. Turkish J. Agric. Fores. 2005; 29: 369–375.
Lin CS, Binns MR, Lefkovitch LP. Stability analysis: Where do we stand? Crop Sci. 1986; 26: 894–900.
Becker HC, Leon J. Stability analysis in plant breeding. Plant Breeding. 1988; 101: 1–23.
Wricke G. On a method of understanding the biological diversity in field research. Z. Pfl.-Zücht. 1962; 47: 92–146.
Finlay KW, Wilkinson GN. The analysis of adaptation in a plant breeding programme. Australian J. Agric. Res. 1963; 14: 742–754.
Eberhart SA, Russel WA. Stability parameters for comparing varieties. Crop Sci. 1966; 6: 36–40.
Francis TR, Kannenberg LW. Yield stability studies in short-season maize. i. a descriptive method for grouping genotypes. Revue Canadienne de Phytotechnie. 1978; 58(4): 1029–1034. DOI: 10.4141/cjps78-157.
Becker HC. Correlation among some statistical measures of phenotypic stability. Euphytica. 1981; 30(3): 835–884.
Gauch HG, Zobel RW. AMMI analysis of yield trials. Chap. 4. In: Kang, M.S. & Gauch H.G., (Eds.), Genotype by environment interaction. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA. 1996. P. 85–122.
Purchase JL, Hatting H, van Deventer CS. Genotype x environment interaction of winter wheat in south Africa : II. Stability analysis of yield performance. South African Journal of Plant and Soil. 2000; 17:101–107. DOI: 10.1080/02571862.2000.10634878.
Gauch HG. Statistical analysis of yield trials by AMMI and GGE. Crop Science. 2006; 46(4): 1488–1500.
Yan W. Singular-value partitioning in biplot analysis of multi-environment trial data. Agronomy Journal. 2002; 94: 990–996. DOI: 10.2134/agronj2002.9900.
Yan W, Kang MS. GGE biplot analysis: a graphical tool for breeders, geneticists and agronomists. Boca Raton, USA, 2003.
Gauch HGJr, Piepho PH, Annicchiarico P. Statistical analysis of yield trials by AMMI and GGE: further considerations. Crop Science. 2008; 48: 866–889.
Sabaghnia N, Dehghani H, Sabaghpour SH. Nonparametric methods for interpreting GxE interaction of lentil genotypes. Crop Sci. 2006; 46: 1100–1106.
Lin CS, Binns MR. A superiority measure of cultivar performance for cultivar x location data. Can. J. Plant Sci. 1988; 68: 193–198.
Rose LW, Das MK, Taliaferro CM. A comparison of dry matter yield stability assessment methods for small numbers of genotypes of Bermudagrass. Euphytica. 2008; 164; 19–25. DOI: 10.1007/s10681-007-9620-2.
Akcura M, Kaya Y, Taner S, Ayranci R. Parametric stability analyses for grain yield of durum wheat. Plant Soil Environ. 2006; 52 (6): 254–261.
Mohammadi R, Roostaei M, Ansari Y, Aghaee M, Amri A. Liens entre la mesure de la stabilite du phenotype et le genotype de trois cereals. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2010; 90: 819–830. DOI: 10.1139/CJPS2013-386
Farshadfar E, Hatami N. Evaluation of Genotype × Environment Interaction in Wheat Substitution Lines. Agricultural Communications. 2015; 3(1): 1–7.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2019 A. Bendjama, P. Solonechnyi, H. Bouzerzour, S. Ramdani
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
When placing the text in electronic resources, the copyright is reserved by the author of a publication.
Authors may not agree with referee’s(s’) comments and remarks of the Editorial Board, rationalizing their point of view.
Authors may require clarification from or the Editorial Board or changes in the event of significant errors in their article.
Authors can use materials published in the journal Selection and Seed Industry in their work, mandatorily referring to our journal.
