Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Statistical Methods to Study Adaptability of Barley Genotypes Evaluated Under Multi Environment Trials


Affiliations
1 Statistics and Computer Center, ICAR- Indian Institute of Wheat and Barley Research, Karnal (Haryana), India
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


Genotypes G5, G8, G3, G21 and G18 had achieved higher yields besides bi > 1.0. G21 and G3 identified as appropriate one, because had higher yield value than the mean, bi values near 1.0 and low S2di. Lower values (W2i) resulted for G12, G5, G2, G21 while higher for G5, G3 and G14. Genotypes G12 followed by G2, G20, and G7 had the smallest environmental variance (S2xi). Smaller values of (CVi) considered G12, G2, G20, and G10 of stable performance. α2 i measure pointed out G12, G7 and G2 with smallest values. Desirable lower Pi values reflected by G18, G5, G21, and G4 while GAI values identified G18, G11, G4 G10 as desirable genotypes. Si (1) and Si(2) showed lower values of G12, G2 and G7 genotypes. Significant tests of Si (1) and Si(2) proved the highly significant difference in ranks among the 21 genotypes grown in 8 environments. Genotypes G12, G2, and G7 had the lower Si(3) and Si(6) values. Yield of genotypes had significant negative correlation with bi, Si(2), Si(3), Si(6), NPi (2), NPi(3), NPi(4) and significant positive correlation with GAI, Pi and Rank Sum. Hierarchical cluster analysis classified genotypes into three clusters as largest cluster included genotypes with more than average yield along with high yielders G18, G11, G3, G5, G21 and unstable performance indicated by non parametric measures. Biplot analysis while considering first two significant principal components grouped the parametric and non parametric measures into four groups. The smaller group consisted of bi and S2 di and adjacent to group of non parametric measures Si(2), Si(6), NPi(2), NPi(3) and NPi(4).

Keywords

Barley, Parametric, Non-Parametric Measures, Biplot Analysis, Hierarchical Clustering.
Subscription Login to verify subscription
User
Notifications
Font Size


  • Dehghani, M.R., Majidi, M.M., Mirlohi, A. and Saeidi, G. (2016). Integrating parametric and non-parametric measures to investigate genotype x environment interactions in tall fescue. Euphytica, 208 : 583–596.
  • Eberhart, S.A. and Russell, W.A. (1966). Stability parameters for comparing varieties. Crop Sci., 6 : 36–40.
  • Finlay, K.W. and Wilkinson, G.N. (1963). Adaptation in a plant breeding programme. Aust. J. Agric. Res., 14 :742–754.
  • Francis, T.R. and Kannenberg, L.W. (1978). Yield stability studied in short-season maize. I. A descriptive method for grouping genotypes. Can. J. Plant Sci., 58 :1029–1034.
  • Hussein, M.A., Bjornstad, A. and Aastveit, A.H. (2000). SASG x ESTAB: A SAS program for computing genotype x environment stability statistics. Agron. J., 92: 454-459.
  • Kang, M.S. (1988). A rank-sum method for selecting highyielding, stable corn genotypes. Cereal Res. Commun., 16 : 113– 115.
  • Khalili, M. and Pour-Aboughadareh, A. (2016). Parametric and non-parametric measures for evaluating yield stability and adaptability in barley doubled haploid lines. J. Agr. Sci. Tech., 18 : 789–803.
  • Kilic, Hasan (2012). Assessment of parametric and nonparametric methods for selecting stable and adapted spring bread wheat genotypes in multi – environments. J. Animal & Plant Sci., 22(2) : 390-398
  • Lin, C.S., Binns, M.R. and Lefkovitch, L.P. (1986). Stability analysis: where do we stand? Crop Sci., 26 : 894–900.
  • Lin, C.S. and Binns, M.R. (1988). A method for analyzing cultivar x location x year experiments: a new stability parameter. Theor. Appl. Genet., 76 : 425–430.
  • Mohammadi, R. and Amri, A. (2008). A comparison of parametric and non-parametric methods for selecting stable and adapted durum wheat genotypes in variable environments. Euphytica, 159 : 419–432.
  • Nassar, R. and Huehn, M. (1987). Studies on estimation of phenotypic stability: tests of significance for nonparametric measures of phenotypic stability. Biometrics, 43 : 45–53.
  • Piepho, H.P. and Lotito, S. (1992). Rank correlation among parametric and nonparametric measures of phenotypic stability. Euphytica, 64: 221–225.
  • Rea, R., De Sousa-Vieira, O., Díaz, A., Ramon, M., Briceno, R., George, J., Nino, M. and Demey, J. (2015). Assessment of yield stability in sugarcane genotypes using non-parametric methods. Agronomía Colombiana, 33(2): 131-138.
  • Scapim, C.A., Pacheco, C.A.P., Teixeira, A.A.J., Vieira, R.A., Pinto, R.J.B. and Conrado, T.V. (2010). Correlations between the stability and adaptability statistics of popcorn cultivars. Euphytica, 174 : 209–218.
  • Shukla, GK. (1972). Some statistical aspects of partitioning genotype-environmental components of variability. Heredity, 29 : 237–245.
  • Temesgen, T., Kenenib, G., Seferaa, T. and Jarsob, M. (2015). Yield stability and relationships among stability parameters in faba bean (Viciafaba L.) genotypes. The Crop J., 3 : 258–268. doi: 10.1016/j. cj.2015.03.004
  • Thennarasu, K. (1995). On certain non-parametric procedures for studying genotype-environment interactions and yield stability. Ph.D. Thesis. P.G. School, IARI, New Delhi.
  • Vaezi, B., Pour-Aboughadareh, A., Mehraban, A., Hossein-Pour, T., Mohammadi, R., Armion, M. and Dorri, M.(2017). The use of parametric and non-parametric measures for selecting stable and adapted barley lines. Arch. Agron. & Soil Sci., DOI: 10.1080/03650340.2017.1369529
  • Ward, J.H. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 58:236–244.
  • Wricke, G. (1962). On a method of understanding the biological diversity in field research. Z. Pflanzenzucht, 47: 92–96.

Abstract Views: 215

PDF Views: 0




  • Statistical Methods to Study Adaptability of Barley Genotypes Evaluated Under Multi Environment Trials

Abstract Views: 215  |  PDF Views: 0

Authors

Ajay Verma
Statistics and Computer Center, ICAR- Indian Institute of Wheat and Barley Research, Karnal (Haryana), India
V. Kumar
Statistics and Computer Center, ICAR- Indian Institute of Wheat and Barley Research, Karnal (Haryana), India
A. S. Kharab
Statistics and Computer Center, ICAR- Indian Institute of Wheat and Barley Research, Karnal (Haryana), India
G. P. Singh
Statistics and Computer Center, ICAR- Indian Institute of Wheat and Barley Research, Karnal (Haryana), India

Abstract


Genotypes G5, G8, G3, G21 and G18 had achieved higher yields besides bi > 1.0. G21 and G3 identified as appropriate one, because had higher yield value than the mean, bi values near 1.0 and low S2di. Lower values (W2i) resulted for G12, G5, G2, G21 while higher for G5, G3 and G14. Genotypes G12 followed by G2, G20, and G7 had the smallest environmental variance (S2xi). Smaller values of (CVi) considered G12, G2, G20, and G10 of stable performance. α2 i measure pointed out G12, G7 and G2 with smallest values. Desirable lower Pi values reflected by G18, G5, G21, and G4 while GAI values identified G18, G11, G4 G10 as desirable genotypes. Si (1) and Si(2) showed lower values of G12, G2 and G7 genotypes. Significant tests of Si (1) and Si(2) proved the highly significant difference in ranks among the 21 genotypes grown in 8 environments. Genotypes G12, G2, and G7 had the lower Si(3) and Si(6) values. Yield of genotypes had significant negative correlation with bi, Si(2), Si(3), Si(6), NPi (2), NPi(3), NPi(4) and significant positive correlation with GAI, Pi and Rank Sum. Hierarchical cluster analysis classified genotypes into three clusters as largest cluster included genotypes with more than average yield along with high yielders G18, G11, G3, G5, G21 and unstable performance indicated by non parametric measures. Biplot analysis while considering first two significant principal components grouped the parametric and non parametric measures into four groups. The smaller group consisted of bi and S2 di and adjacent to group of non parametric measures Si(2), Si(6), NPi(2), NPi(3) and NPi(4).

Keywords


Barley, Parametric, Non-Parametric Measures, Biplot Analysis, Hierarchical Clustering.

References