Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T14:50:25.863Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of parametric and non-parametric methods for analysing genotype×environment interactions in safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 June 2009

M. J. MOGHADDAM  and
S. S. POURDAD
M. J. MOGHADDAM*
Affiliation:
Oilseed Breeders, Dry-land Agricultural Research Institute (DARI), P. O. Box 67145-1164, Kermanshah, Iran
S. S. POURDAD
Affiliation:
Oilseed Breeders, Dry-land Agricultural Research Institute (DARI), P. O. Box 67145-1164, Kermanshah, Iran
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: m_jmoghaddam@yahoo.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Genotype×environment interaction (GEI) is a major factor in the development of stable and high-yielding safflower cultivars under rain-fed conditions. In order to quantify GEI effects on the seed yield of 17 safflower genotypes and to identify stable genotypes, multi-environment yield trials (multi-environment trials (MET)) were conducted for four consecutive years in 33 different environments (year–location combinations) during 2003–06. The results indicated that GEI was significant using the Hildebrand (1980) procedure for non-crossover interaction (no change in genotypic rank) and by the Azzalini & Cox (1984) and the De Kroon & Van Der Laan (1981) tests for crossover interaction (change in genotypic rank). The rank-interaction was not significant when assessed using the Bredenkamp (1974) method. Fifteen univariate stability methods measuring different aspects of stability were used to determine stable genotypes. A principal component analysis based on rank correlation matrix separated those methods based on a dynamic concept of yield stability (change in genotypic performance corresponds to the predicted level for each environment) from those which are based on a static one (the lowest changes in genotypic performance across environments). The methods could be grouped into three distinct classes: (i) those which were associated with yield level and the dynamic concept of stability; (ii) those which were associated with environmental variance, which represents static stability; and (iii) those which were grouped with non-parametric stability statistics, which also represent static stability. The superiority index of cultivar performance, coefficient of regression, Rank-Sum (sum of ranks of yield and stability variance) and TOP (number of environments at which the cultivar occurred in the top third of the ranks) defined the dynamic stability.

In this MET, the genotype PI-537598 was identified as the genotype with the highest yield and high stability of yield.

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 147 , Issue 5 , October 2009 , pp. 601 - 612
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Azzalini, A. & Cox, D. R. (1984). Two new tests associated with analysis of variance. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 46, 335–343.Google Scholar
Baker, R. J. (1988). Tests for cross over genotype-environment interactions. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 68, 405–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basford, K. E. & Cooper, M. (1998). Genotype×environment interactions and some considerations of their implications for wheat breeding in Australia. Australian Journal Agricultural Research 49, 153–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, H. C. (1981). Correlations among some statistical measures of phenotypic stability. Euphytica 30, 835–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, H. C. & Léon, J. (1988). Stability analysis in plant breeding. Plant Breeding 101, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bredenkamp, J. (1974). Nonparametrische Prüfung von Wechselwirkungen. Psychologische Beiträge 16, 398–416.Google Scholar
Ceccarelli, S. (1989). Wide adaptation. How wide? Euphytica 40, 197–205.Google Scholar
De Kroon, J. P. M. & Van Der Laan, P. (1981). Distribution-free test procedures in two-way layouts: a concept of crossover-interaction. Statistica Neerlandica 35, 189–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberhart, S. A. & Russell, W. A. (1966). Stability parameters for comparing varieties. Crop Science 6, 36–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esendal, E. (1997). Agro-physiology outlook on safflower. In Proceeding of IVth International Safflower Conference, Bari, Italy, 2–7 June 1997. A Multipurpose Species with Unexploited Potential and World Adaptability (Eds Corleto, A. & Mündel, H.-H.), pp. 155–161. Bari, Italy: Adriatica Editrice.Google Scholar
Flores, E., Moreno, M. T. & Cubero, J. I. (1998). A comparison of univariate and multivariate methods to analyze environments. Field Crops Research 56, 271–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, P. N., Skovmand, B., Thompson, B. K., Braun, H. J. & Cormier, R. (1990). Yield and adaptation of hexaploid spring triticale. Euphytica 47, 57–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gail, M. & Simon, R. (1985). Testing for qualitative interactions between treatment effects and patient subsets. Biometrics 41, 361–372.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hildebrand, H. (1980). Asymptotisch verteilungsfreie Rangtests in linearen Modellen. Medizinische Informatik und Statistik 17, 344–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huehn, M. (1990). Nonparametric measures of phenotypic stability. Part 1: theory. Euphytica 47, 189–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hühn, M. (1979). Beiträge zur Erfassung der phänotypischen Stabilität. I. Vorschlag einiger auf Ranginformationen beruhenden Stabilitätsparameter. EDV in Medizin ünd Biologie 10, 112–117.Google Scholar
Hühn, M. & Léon, J. (1995). Nonparametric analysis of cultivar performance trials: Experimental results and comparison of different procedures based on ranks. Agronomy Journal 87, 627–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, A. M., Tanaka, D. L., Miller, P. R., Brandt, S. A., Nielsen, D. C., Lafond, G. P. & Riveland, N. R. (2002). Oilseed crops for semiarid cropping systems in the northern Great Plains. Agronomy Journal 94, 231–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kang, M. S. (1988). A rank-sum method for selecting high-yielding, stable corn genotypes. Cereal Research Communications 16, 113–115.Google Scholar
Kang, M. S. & Pham, H. N. (1991). Simultaneous selection for high yielding and stable crop genotypes. Agronomy Journal 83, 161–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempton, R. A. (1984). The use of biplots in interpreting variety by environment interactions. The Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 103, 123–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knowles, P. F. (1969). Centers of plant diversity and conservation of crop germplasm: safflower. Economic Botany 23, 324–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krishnan, P. & Surya Rao, A. V. (2005). Effects of genotype and environment on seed yield and quality of rice. The Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 143, 283–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kubinger, K. D. (1986). A note on nonparametric tests for the interaction in two-way layouts. Biometrical Journal 28, 67–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laurentin, H., Montilla, D. & Garcia, V. (2007). Interpreting genotype×environment interaction in sesame (Sesamum indicum L.). The Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 145, 263–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, C. S. & Binns, M. R. (1988). A superiority measure of cultivar performance for cultivar×location data. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 68, 193–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, C. S., Binns, M. R. & Lefkovitch, L. P. (1986). Stability analysis: where do we stand? Crop Science 26, 894–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, H., Goonewardene, L. & Spaner, D. (2008). Competitive traits and the stability of wheat cultivars in differing natural weed environments on the northern Canadian Prairies. The Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 146, 21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matus-Cádiz, M. A., Hucl, P., Perron, C. E. & Tyler, R. T. (2003). Genotype×environment interaction for grain color in hard white spring wheat. Crop Science 43, 219–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mekbib, F. (2002). Simultaneous selection for high yield and stability in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) genotypes. The Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 138, 249–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohammadi, R. & Amri, A. (2008). Comparison of parametric and non-parametric methods for selecting stable and adapted durum wheat genotypes in variable environments. Euphytica 159, 419–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nassar, R. & Hühn, M. (1987). Studies on estimation of phenotypic stability: tests of significance for nonparametric measures of phenotypic stability. Biometrics 43, 45–53.Google Scholar
Phakamas, N., Patanothai, A., Pannangpetch, K., Jogloy, S. & Hoogenboom, G. (2008). Seasonal responses and genotype-by-season interactions for the growth dynamic and development traits of peanut. The Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 146, 311–323.Google Scholar
Piepho, H. P. & Lotito, S. (1992). Rank correlation among parametric and nonparametric measures of phenotypic stability. Euphytica 64, 221–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabaghnia, N., Sabaghpour, S. H. & Dehghani, H. (2008). The use of an AMMI model and its parameters to analyse yield stability in multi-environment trials. The Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 146, 571–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shukla, G. K. (1972). Some statistical aspects of partitioning genotype-environmental components of variability. Heredity 29, 237–245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, A. B., Cullis, B. R. & Thompson, R. (2005). The analysis of crop cultivar breeding and evaluation trials: an overview of current mixed model approaches. The Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 143, 449–462.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Truberg, B. & Hühn, M. (2000). Contributions to the analysis of genotype×environment interactions: Comparison of different parametric and non-parametric tests for interactions with emphasis on crossover interactions. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 185, 267–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Virk, D. S. & Mangat, B. K. (1991). Detection of cross over genotype×environment interactions in pearl millet. Euphytica 52, 193–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wricke, G. (1962). Über eine Methode Zur Erfassung der ökologischen Streubreite in Feldversuchen. Zeitschrift für Pflanzenzüchtung 47, 92–96.Google Scholar