Iranian Journal of Field Crop Science

Iranian Journal of Field Crop Science

Yield Stability Assesment of Primary Tritipyrum as a of New Creal in Comparison with Triricale and Bread Wheat using AMMI Method

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors
Sara Farokhzade 1
Ghasem Mohamadinejad 2
Hossein Shahsavand Hassani 3
1 M. Sc. Student, Agronomy and Plant Breeding Departmento of Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman and master of Payam Noor University, Darab, Iran
2 Asociated professor, Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman and Member of Abiotic Stresses Board in Cereal, Iran
3 Asociated Professor, Department of crop production and plant breeding, School of Agriculture, Shiraz University, Iran
10.22059/ijfcs.2015.54882
Abstract
Yield stability of 17 genotypes including eight of tritipyrum lines, five promising triticale lines and four Iranian bread wheat varieties were studied in a randomized completely block design with three replications in seven environment during growing seasons of 2001-2002, 2002-2003, 2005-2006 and 2010-2011 in three locations. Analysis of additive main effects and multiplicative interaction effects (AMMI) showed that environment main effects and genotype × environment interaction were highly significant, so 89.49 percent of its sum of squares explained by the first three principal components (IPCI). Biplot results of genotypic and environmental components of interaction in the first, second and third principal components and mean yield of genotypes and environments, stability parameters of SIPC3 and EV3 in AMMI3 model and pattern analysis showed bread wheat cultivars had the unstable reaction to weak stability, triticale lines {4115, 4108} and Kavir wheat cultivar showed the specific adaptation to the sixth environment (Kerman) but, tritipyrum lines had the most stable reaction in different environments and combined primary line {(Ka/b)(Cr/b)-6} showed the specific adaptation to the Neyriz area. Combined primary tritipyrum line (Ka/b)(Cr/b)-5 with the higher yield than the mean yield and good general adapatibility was known the best genotype that can be used as a pasture line for further study forage and grain production
Keywords
Genotype × environment interaction
pattern analysis
AMMI analysis
  1. Aghaee-Sarbarzeh, M.,Dastfal, M., Farzadi, H., Andarzian, B., Pourshahbazi, A. Sh., Bahari, M. & Rostami, H. (2012). Evaluation of durum wheat genotypes for yield and yield stability in warm and dry areas of Iran. Seed and Plant Improvement Journal, 28-1(2), 315-325. (In Farsi)
  2. Aghaee-Sarbarzeh, M., Safari, H., Rostaei, M., Nadermahmoodi, K., PourSiahbidi, M. M., Hesami, A., Solaimani, K., Ahmadi, M. M. & Mohammadi, R. (2007). Study of general and specific adaptation in dryland advance wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) lines using GE biplot based on AMMI model. Pajouhesh & Sazandegi, 77, 41-48. (In Farsi)
  3. Akcura, M., Kaya, Y. & Taner, S. (2005). Genotype-environment interaction and phenotypic stability analysis for grain yield of durum wheat in the central Anatolian region. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 29(5), 369-375.
  4. Albert, M. J. A. (2004). A comparison of statistical methods to describe genotype × environment interaction and yield stability in multi-location maize trials. MSC. dissertation, University of Orange Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.
  5. Allard, R. W. & Bradshaw, A. D. (1964). Implications of genotype-environment interactions in applied Plant Breeding. CropSci, 4, 503-508.
    1. Annicchiarico, P. (2002). Genotype × environment interactions: challenges and opportunities for plant breeding and cultivar recommendations. FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper No. 174. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
  6. Basford, K. E. & Cooper, M. (1998). Genotype × environment interactions and some considerations of their implications for wheat breeding in Australia. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 49(3), 153-174.
  7. Chapman, S. C., Crossa, J. & Edmeades, G. O. (1997). Genotype by environment effects and selection for drought tolerance in tropical maize. I. Two mode pattern analysis of yield. Euphitica, 95(1), 1-9.
  8. Crossa, J., Gauch, H. G. J. & Zobel, R. W. (1990). Additive main effects and multiplicative interaction analysis of two international maize cultivar trials. CropScience, 30(3), 493-500.
  9. Dimitrijvic, M., Knezevic, D., Petrovic, S., Zecevic, V., Boskovic, J., Belic, M., Pejic, B. & Banjac, B. (2011). Stability of yield components in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Genetica, 43(1), 29-39.
  10. Ebdon, J. S. & Gauch, H. G. (2002). Additive main effect and multiplicative interaction analysis of national turfgrass performance trials: II. Cultivar recommendations. Crop Science, 42(2), 497-506.
  11. Eberhart, S. A. & Russell, W. A. (1966). Stability parameters for comparing varieties. Crop Science, 6, 36-40.
  12. Finlay, K. W. & Wilkinson, G. M. (1963). The analysis of adaptation in a plant breeding programme. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 14, 742-754.
    1. Gauch, H. G. (1992). Statistical analysis of regional yield trials: AMMI analysis of factorial designs. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlans. 53-110.
  13. Guach, H. G. & Zobel, R. W. (1997). Identifying mega-environments and targeting genotypes. Crop Science, 37, 311-326.
  14. Haji Mohammad Ali Jahromi, M., Khodarahmi, M., Mohammadi, A. R. & Mohammadi, A. (2011). Stability analysis for grain yield of promising durum wheat genotypes in southern warm and dry agro
    climatic zone of Iran. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences, 13(3), 565-579. (In Farsi with English Abstract)
  15. Hussein, A. M., Bjornstad, A. & Astveit, A. H. (2000). SASG × ESTAB: A SAS program for computing genotype × environment stability statistics. Journal of Agronomy, 92, 454-459.
  16. Jarrah, M. & Geng, I. (1997). Variability of morpho-physiological traits of Mediterranean durum cultivars. Rachis, 16(1/2), 52-56.
  17. Kaya, Y., Palta, C. & Taner, S. (2002). Additive main effects and multiplicative interactions analysis of yield performance in bread wheat genotypes across environments. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 26, 275-279.
  18. Karimzadeh, R., Dehgani, H. & Dehghanpour, Z. (2008). Use of AMMI method for estimating genotype-environment interaction in early maturing corn hybrids. Seed and Plant Improvement Journal, 23(4), 537-546. (In Farsi)
  19. Kempton, R. A. (1984). The use of biplots in interpreting variety by environment interactions. Journal of Agricultural Science, 103, 123-135.
  20. Lin, C. S. (1982). Grouping genotypes by a cluster method directly related to genotype-environment interaction mean square. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 62, 277-280.
  21. Mohammadi, R., Armion, M. & Ahmadi, M. M. (2011). Genotype × environment interactions for grain yield of durum wheat genotypes using AMMI model. Seed and Plant Improvement Journal, 27-1(2), 183-198. (In Farsi).
  22. Najafian, G., Kaffashi, A. K. & Jafar-Nezhad, A. (2010). Analysis of grain yield stability in hexaploid wheat genotypes grown in temperate regions of Iran using additive main effects and multiplicative interaction. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 12(2), 213-222.
  23. Nikkhah, H. R., Yousefi, A., Mortazavian, S. M. & Arazmjoo, M. (2007). Analysis of yield stability of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) genotypes- using additive main effects and multiplicative interaction (AMMI) model. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences, 9(1), 1-13. (In Farsi)
  24. Perkinz, J. M. (1972). The principal component analysis of genotype-environmental interactions and physical measures of the environment. Heredity, 29, 51-70.
  25. Rharrabti, Y., Garcia del Miral, L. F. Villegas, D. & Royo, C. (2003). Durum wheat quality in Mediterranean environments III. Stability and comparative methods in analyzing G × E interaction. Field Crop Research, 80, 141-146.
  26. Schoeman, L. J. (2003). Genotype × environment interaction in sunflower (Helianthus annuus) in South Africa. M.Sc. dissertation, University of the Orange Free State, Bloemfontein.
  27. Shahsevand Hassani, H. & Soltaninejad, N. (2006). The study of yield and agronomical potential of two alloploid synthetic cereal [tritipyrum (AABBEbEb, 2n = 6x = 42) and triticale (2n = 6x =42, AABBRR)] with natural bread wheat allopolyploid. The 9th congress of agronomy and plant breeding. Tehran University. Iran, p: 577.
  28. Shahsevand Hassani, H., Caligair, P. D. & Miller, T. (2003).The chromosomal assessment of salt tolerant substituted Tritipyrum using genomic fluorescent in situ hybridization. Iranian Journal of Biotechnology, 1(3), 169-178.
  29. Tarakanovas, P. & Ruzgas, V. (2006). Additive main effect and multiplicative interaction analysis of grain yield of wheat varieties in Lithuania. Agronomy Research, 4(1), 91-98.
  30. Tai, G.C.C. (1979). Analysis of genotype environment interaction of potato yield. Crop Science, 19, 434-438.
  31. Vargas, M., Crossa, J. Eeuwijk, F. V. Sayre, K. D. & Reynolds, M. P. (2001). Interpreting treatment × environment interaction in agronomy trails. Agronomy Journal, 93(4): 949-960.
  32. Yan, W. & Hunt, L. A. (2001). Interpretation of genotype × environment interaction for winter wheat yield in Ontario. Crop Science, 41, 19-25.
  33. Yates, F. & Cochran, W. G. (1938). The analysis of groups of experiments. Journal of Agricultural Science, 28, 556-580.
  34. Zobel, R. W. & Gauch, H. G. (1996). AMMI analysis of yield trails. pp. 88-122. In: M. S. Kang and H. G. Gauch (eds.). Genotype by Environment Interaction. CRC Pub., Boca Raton, Florida.
  35. Zobel, R. W., Wright, M. J. & Gauch, H. G. (1988). Statistical analysis of a yield trial. Agronomy Journal, 80, 388-393.
Iranian Journal of Field Crop Science
Volume 46, Issue 2 - Serial Number 2
Summer 2015
Pages 299-313

  • Receive Date 22 June 2014
  • Revise Date 16 September 2015
  • Accept Date 31 December 2014
  • Publish Date 22 June 2015