Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T07:42:02.426Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phenotypic stability of oats measured with different stability analyses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

P. Peltonen-Sainio ,
K. Moore  and
E. Pehu
P. Peltonen-Sainio
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki, Department of Crop Husbandry, SF-00710 Helsinki, Finland
K. Moore
Affiliation:
Rothamsted Experimental Station, Statistics Department, Harpenden, Herts AL5 2JQ, UK
E. Pehu
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki, Department of Crop Husbandry, SF-00710 Helsinki, Finland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The phenotypic stability of seven Finnish and Nordic oat cultivars and 12 breeding lines developed at the Hankkija Plant Breeding Institute, Finland, was studied using the Finlay–Wilkinson regression method, Eberhart–Russell stability analysis, principal component analysis (PCA) with biplot presentation, canonical variate analysis (CVA) and Procrustes analysis. Comparison of stability analyses was based on four dissimilar growing seasons. In addition to the measurement of phenotypic stability of grain yield, the performance of 12 morpho-physiological traits was evaluated, including maturity class and structure of canopy and plant stand.

The different stability analyses examined produced uniform results and ranked the cultivars and breeding lines without major disagreements. Lines with exceptionally stable yield performance over the different growing seasons were identified. In general, there was an association of high yielding ability with poor stability. However, some cultivars deviated from this tendency and showed high grain yield production and average stability of yield performance.

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 121 , Issue 1 , August 1993 , pp. 13 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

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

Crossa, J. (1988). A comparison of results obtained with two methods for assessing yield stability. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 75, 460–467.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
Genstat 5 Committee (1987). Genstat 5, Reference Manual. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Gower, J. C. (1975). Generalized procrustes analysis. Psychometrika 40, 33–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horner, T. W. & Frey, K. J. (1957). Methods for determining natural areas for oat varietal recommendations. Agronomy Journal 49, 313–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Immer, F. R., Hayes, H. K. & Powers, L. (1934). Statistical determination of barley varietal adaptation. Journal of the American Society of Agronomy 26, 403–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempton, R. A. (1984). The use of biplots in interpreting variety by environment interactions. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 103, 123–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kivi, E. I. (1963). Domestic plant breeding for the improvement of spring cereal varieties in Finland. Ada Agralia Fennica 100 (3), 1–37.Google Scholar
Krzanowski, W. J. (1988). Principles of Multivariate Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mukula, J. & Rantanen, O. (1989). Climatic risks to the yield and quality of field crops in Finland. VII. Oats 1969–1986. Annales Agriculturae Fenniae 28, 37–43.Google Scholar
Pehu, E., Karp, A., Moore, K., Steele, S., Dunckley, R. & Jones, M. G. K. (1989). Molecular, cytogenetic and morphological characterization of somatic hybrids of dihaploid Solanum tuberosum and diploid S. brevidens. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 78, 696–704.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peltonen, P. (1990). Effect of climatic factors on the yield and on the characteristics connected to yielding ability of oats (Avena sativa L.). Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 40, 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peltonen-Sainio, P. (1990). Genetic improvements in the structure of oat stands in northern growing conditions during this century. Plant Breeding 104, 340–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peltonen-Sainio, P. (1991). Productive oat ideotype for northern growing conditions. Euphytica 54, 27–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peltonen-Sainio, P. & Karjalainen, R. (1990). Yield reduction of oat cultivars in relation to disease development caused by barley yellow dwarf virus. Journal of Agricultural Science in Finland 62, 265–273.Google Scholar
Plaisted, R. L. & Peterson, L. C. (1959). A technique for evaluating the ability of selections to yield consistently in different locations or seasons. American Potato Journal 36, 381–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rekunen, M. (1988). Advances in the breeding of oats. Comparative trials with historical varieties in 1977–87. Journal of Agricultural Science in Finland 60, 307–321.Google Scholar
Rezai, A. & Frey, K. J. (1990). Multivariate analysis of variation among wild oat accessions – seed traits. Euphytica 49, 111–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, S. C. (1951). Analysis of variance and long-time variety tests of wheat. Agronomy Journal 43, 562–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar