Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T09:15:03.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of the performance of sweet potato genotypes by joint regression analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. M. Ngeve
J. M. Ngeve
Affiliation:
Institute of Agronomic Research, Nkolbisson, BP 2067 Yaounde, Cameroon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Two experiments, each involving a set of six sweet potato clones, the first set developed in sites differing in altitude, and the second in sites differing in soil type, were done at three locations in 4 years in Cameroon. Data obtained were subjected to analyses of variance to determine the presence of genotype × environment (G × E) interactions, and to joint regression analyses to measure the performance of clones across environments. The first experiment produced higher yields and contained more stable clones than the second. In both experiments, mean yields were almost twice as high in 1984 (21·1 t/ha) as in each of the other years (c. 11·0 t/ha), and highest at Nyombe (18·0 t/ha). In Expt 1, the G × E interaction mainly concerned interaction with location, whereas in Expt 2 it concerned interaction with years.

Clones 1611 (Expt 1) and 048 (Expt 2) yielded above average and gave linear regressions significantly above unity (b > 1·0) for most traits, indicating specific adaptation to high-yielding environments and hence below average stability. Clones 1112, 1639 and TIbl (Expt I) yielded above average and had regression slopes equal to unity (b = 1·0), indicating average stability and thus general adaptability. Clones TIb2 (Expt 1) and 1487 (Expt 2) produced below average yields (b < 1·0), indicating specific adaptation to low-yielding environments. Since sweet potato is grown mainly for human consumption in Cameroon, a preferred clone must have stable marketable yields. Only clones 1112, TIbl and 1639 could be considered desirable for release to growers.

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 117 , Issue 2 , October 1991 , pp. 171 - 176
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

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

Allard, R. W. & Bradshaw, A. D. (1964). Implications of genotype-environment interactions in applied plant breeding. Crop Science 4, 503–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breese, E. L. (1969). The measurement and significance of genotype-environment interactions in grasses. Heredity 24, 27–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cnrcip (1982). Annual Technical Report for the Cameroon National Root Crops Improvement Programme for the year 1981. Njombe, Cameroon: Institute of Agronomic Research.Google Scholar
Collins, W. W., Wilson, L. G., Arrendell, S. & Dickey, L. F. (1987). Genotype × environment interactions in sweet potato yield and quality factors. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 112, 579–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowker, B. D., Jackson, J. C. & Phelps, K. (1978). Variation studies in carrots as an aid to breeding. VI. Genotype-environment interactions in contrasting field environment. Journal of Horticultural Science 53, 131–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberhart, S. A. & Russell, W. A. (1966). Stability parameters for comparing varieties. Crop Science 6, 36–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finlay, K. W. & Wilkinson, G. N. (1963). The analysis of adaptation in a plant-breeding programme. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 14, 742–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, G. H. (1973). Statistical methods for the analysis of genotype-environment interactions. Heredity 31, 339–354.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, J. (1975). Genotype-environment interactions - a challenge for plant breeding. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 85, 411–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kannua, M. B. & Floyd, C. N. (1988). Sweet potato genotype-environment interactions in the highlands of Papua New Guinea. Tropical Agriculture 65, 9–15.Google Scholar
Knight, R. (1970). The measurement and interpretation of genotype-environment interactions. Euphytica 19, 225–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ng, T. J (1980). Evaluation of muskmelon cultivar performance by joint regression analysis. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 105, 220–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perkins, J. M. & Jinks, J. L. (1968). Environmental and genotype-environmental components of variability. III. Multiple lines and crosses. Heredity 23, 339–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perkins, J. M. & Jinks, J. L. (1971). Specificity of the interactions of genotypes with contrasting environments. Heredity 26, 463–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snoad, B. & Arthur, A. E. (1976). The use of regression techniques for predicting the response of peas to environments. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 47, 9–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witcombe, J. R. & Whittington, W. J. (1971). A study of the genotype by environment interaction shown by germinating seeds of Brassica napus. Heredity 26, 397–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yates, F. & Cochran, W. G. (1938). The analysis of groups of experiments. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 28, 556–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar