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

Wheat Genotypes Evaluated under Central Zone for Stability Analysis by Rank based Measures Considering BLUP and BLUE of Yield Values


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

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


Rank based measures of stability had been compared for wheat genotypes evualated in Central Zone of the country as per the BLUP and BLUE of yield values. Measures based on ranks of BLUP of original yield for 2016-17, Sis measures identified G3, G7, G4 as stable genotypes. Corrected yield measures CSis selected G4, G7, G3 for stable performance. Values of NPi(s) identified G1, G6 as of undesirable types. Association analysis observed positive correlations of Sis, with others and themselves. Positive relationships also exhibited by CSis and NPi(s) values to other measures. Biplot analysis exhibited cluster of Si6 , Si3 , CV, NPi(2), NPi(3), NPi(4) and CSi7. Larger cluster comprised of NPi(1) CCV, CSD Si1, Si2, Si4, Si 5, Si7 , CSi 1, CSi2, CSi 3, CSi 4, CSi 5, CSi6 measures. Based on BLUE’s of genotypes yield, measures Sis found G3, G7, G4 as the stable genotypes, however G1, G2 would express unstable performance. CSis identified G7, G3, G6 as opposed to G3, G5, G7 genotypes as by values NPi(s). Positive correlations exhibited by Sisexcept of negative with CMR, CMed, Z1 and Z2 values. Ranks of genotypes as per values of CSis and NPi(s) measures expressed direct relationship with most of the measures. Biplot analysis observed large cluster comprised of CCV, CSD, NPi(1), Si1, Si2, Si4,CSi1, CSi2, CSi 3, CSi4, CSi5, CSi6, CSi7 measures. Second year of study (2017-18) as per BLUP’s seen, Sis settled for G6, G5, G3 genotypes. While NPi(s) settled for G6, G3,G5 as genotypes of stable performance. Highly significant negative correlation of yield observed with most of the measures MR, CV, Med, Si3, Si6 ,CMR,NPi(2), NPi(3), NPi(4). Biplot analysis as per first two significant components (accounted for 88.7 %) marked larger cluster contains CSis with NPi(1), Si1, Si2 Si4, Si5 Si7 ,SD, CSD measures. Sis rank based measures as per BLUE’s of genotypes pointed towards G5,G4, G6, G1 whereas G6, G5, G1,G3 by CSis values. Wheat genotypes G1,G2, G3,G5 settled by least values of NPi(s) . Direct relationships portraited by Sis, CSis and NPi(s) with others. Larger cluster grouped NPi(s), CV, CCV, Z1, Z2, Yield, GAI, CSi5, CSi6 measures.

Keywords

Blup, Blue, Si(s), CSi (s), NPi(s), Co-efficient Of Concordance, Biplot Analysis.
Subscription Login to verify subscription
User
Notifications
Font Size


  • Adugna, W. and Labuschagne, M.T. (2003). Parametric and nonparametric measures of phenotypic stability in linseed (Linum usitatissimum L.). J. Euphytica, 129 (2): 211-218.
  • Ahmadi, J., Vaezi, B., Shaabani, A., Khademi, K., Ourang, S. Fabriki and Pour-Aboughadareh, A. (2015). Non-parametric measures for yield stability in grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.) advanced lines in semi warm regions. J. Agric. Sci. Tech., 17: 1825-1838.
  • Bredenkamp, J. (1974). Non-parametric prufung von wechsewirkungen. Psychol. Beitr., 16 : 398-416.
  • Cravero, V., Martin, E., Anido, F.L. and Cointry, E. (2010). Stability through years in a non-balanced trial of globe artichoke varietal types. Sci. Hort., 126: 73-77.
  • Flores, F., Moreno, M.T. and Cubero, J.I. (1998). Acomparison of univariate and multivariate methods to analyze environments. Field Crops Res., 56 : 271-286.
  • Fox, P., Skovmand, B., Thompson, B., Braun, H.J. and Cormier, R. (1990). Yield and adaptation of hexaploid spring triticale. Euphytica, 47: 57-64.
  • Gauch, H.G. and Zobel, R.W. (1996). AMMI analysis of yield trials. In: Genotype-by-environment Interaction (Kang, M.S. and H.G. Gauch, eds.), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL: 85- 122.
  • Huehn, M. (1979). Beitragezurerfassung der phanotypischenstabilitat. EDV Med. Biol., 10:112-117.
  • Huehn, M. (1990a). Non-parametric measures of phenotypic stability. Part 1: Theory. Euphytica, 47:189-194.
  • Huehn, M. (1990b). Non-parametric measures of phenotypic stability: Part 2. Application. Euphytica, 47:195-201.
  • Huehn, M. (1996). Non-parametric analysis of genotype x environment interactions by ranks. In: Kang, M.S. and Gauch, H.G. (eds) Genotype by Environment Interaction. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp. 213 - 228.
  • Hussein, M.A., Bjornstad, A. and Aastveit, A.H. (2000). SASG x ESTAB: A SAS programme for computing genotype x environment stability statistics. Agron. J., 92: 454-459.
  • Isik, K. and Kleinschmit, J. (2003). Stability related parameters and their evaluation in a 17-year old Norway spruce clonal test series. Silvae Genetica, 52 : 133–138.
  • Ketata, H., Yan, S.K. and Nachit, M. (1989). Relative consistency performance across environments. Int Symp on Physiology and Breeding of Winter Cereals for Stressed Mediterranean Environments. Montpellier, July 3-6.
  • Khalili, M. and Pour-Aboughadareh, A. (2016). Parametric and non- parametric measures for evaluating yield stability and adaptability in barley doubled haploid lines. J. Agric. Sci. & Technol., 18 : 789–803.
  • Kubinger, K.D. (1986). A note on non-parametric tests for the interaction on two-way layouts. Biomet. J., 28 : 67- 72.
  • Lin, C.S., Binns, M.R. and Lefkovitch, L.P. (1986). Stability analysis : Where do we stand? Crop Sci., 26 : 894-900.
  • Liu,Y.J., Duan, C., Tian, M.L., Hu, E.L. and Huang,Y.B. (2010). Yield stability of maize hybrids evaluated in maize regional trials in southwestern china using nonparametric methods. Agric. Sci. China., 9: 1413- 1422.
  • Nassar, R. and Huehn, M. (1987). Studies on estimation of phenotypic stability: tests of significance for non-parametric measures of phenotypic stability. Biometric., 43: 45- 53.
  • Piepho, H.P. and Lotito, S. (1992). Rank correlation among parametric and nonparametric measures of phenotypic stability. Euphytica, 64 : 221–225.
  • Sabaghnia, N., Dehghani, H. and Sbaghpour, S.H. (2006). Nonparametric methods for interpreting genotype × environment interaction of lentil genotypes. Crop Sci., 46 : 1100-1106.
  • Spearman, C. (1904). The proof and measurement of association between two things. Amer. J. Psychol., 15:72-101.
  • 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, India.

Abstract Views: 532

PDF Views: 0




  • Wheat Genotypes Evaluated under Central Zone for Stability Analysis by Rank based Measures Considering BLUP and BLUE of Yield Values

Abstract Views: 532  |  PDF Views: 0

Authors

Ajay Verma
ICAR-Indian Institute of Wheat and Barley Research, Karnal (Haryana), India
G. P. Singh
ICAR-Indian Institute of Wheat and Barley Research, Karnal (Haryana), India

Abstract


Rank based measures of stability had been compared for wheat genotypes evualated in Central Zone of the country as per the BLUP and BLUE of yield values. Measures based on ranks of BLUP of original yield for 2016-17, Sis measures identified G3, G7, G4 as stable genotypes. Corrected yield measures CSis selected G4, G7, G3 for stable performance. Values of NPi(s) identified G1, G6 as of undesirable types. Association analysis observed positive correlations of Sis, with others and themselves. Positive relationships also exhibited by CSis and NPi(s) values to other measures. Biplot analysis exhibited cluster of Si6 , Si3 , CV, NPi(2), NPi(3), NPi(4) and CSi7. Larger cluster comprised of NPi(1) CCV, CSD Si1, Si2, Si4, Si 5, Si7 , CSi 1, CSi2, CSi 3, CSi 4, CSi 5, CSi6 measures. Based on BLUE’s of genotypes yield, measures Sis found G3, G7, G4 as the stable genotypes, however G1, G2 would express unstable performance. CSis identified G7, G3, G6 as opposed to G3, G5, G7 genotypes as by values NPi(s). Positive correlations exhibited by Sisexcept of negative with CMR, CMed, Z1 and Z2 values. Ranks of genotypes as per values of CSis and NPi(s) measures expressed direct relationship with most of the measures. Biplot analysis observed large cluster comprised of CCV, CSD, NPi(1), Si1, Si2, Si4,CSi1, CSi2, CSi 3, CSi4, CSi5, CSi6, CSi7 measures. Second year of study (2017-18) as per BLUP’s seen, Sis settled for G6, G5, G3 genotypes. While NPi(s) settled for G6, G3,G5 as genotypes of stable performance. Highly significant negative correlation of yield observed with most of the measures MR, CV, Med, Si3, Si6 ,CMR,NPi(2), NPi(3), NPi(4). Biplot analysis as per first two significant components (accounted for 88.7 %) marked larger cluster contains CSis with NPi(1), Si1, Si2 Si4, Si5 Si7 ,SD, CSD measures. Sis rank based measures as per BLUE’s of genotypes pointed towards G5,G4, G6, G1 whereas G6, G5, G1,G3 by CSis values. Wheat genotypes G1,G2, G3,G5 settled by least values of NPi(s) . Direct relationships portraited by Sis, CSis and NPi(s) with others. Larger cluster grouped NPi(s), CV, CCV, Z1, Z2, Yield, GAI, CSi5, CSi6 measures.

Keywords


Blup, Blue, Si(s), CSi (s), NPi(s), Co-efficient Of Concordance, Biplot Analysis.

References