Refine your search
Collections
Co-Authors
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z All
Verma, Ajay
- Statistical Methods to Study Adaptability of Barley Genotypes Evaluated Under Multi Environment Trials
Abstract Views :237 |
PDF Views:0
Authors
Affiliations
1 Statistics and Computer Center, ICAR- Indian Institute of Wheat and Barley Research, Karnal (Haryana), IN
1 Statistics and Computer Center, ICAR- Indian Institute of Wheat and Barley Research, Karnal (Haryana), IN
Source
International Journal of Agricultural Sciences, Vol 14, No 2 (2018), Pagination: 283-291Abstract
Genotypes G5, G8, G3, G21 and G18 had achieved higher yields besides bi > 1.0. G21 and G3 identified as appropriate one, because had higher yield value than the mean, bi values near 1.0 and low S2di. Lower values (W2i) resulted for G12, G5, G2, G21 while higher for G5, G3 and G14. Genotypes G12 followed by G2, G20, and G7 had the smallest environmental variance (S2xi). Smaller values of (CVi) considered G12, G2, G20, and G10 of stable performance. α2 i measure pointed out G12, G7 and G2 with smallest values. Desirable lower Pi values reflected by G18, G5, G21, and G4 while GAI values identified G18, G11, G4 G10 as desirable genotypes. Si (1) and Si(2) showed lower values of G12, G2 and G7 genotypes. Significant tests of Si (1) and Si(2) proved the highly significant difference in ranks among the 21 genotypes grown in 8 environments. Genotypes G12, G2, and G7 had the lower Si(3) and Si(6) values. Yield of genotypes had significant negative correlation with bi, Si(2), Si(3), Si(6), NPi (2), NPi(3), NPi(4) and significant positive correlation with GAI, Pi and Rank Sum. Hierarchical cluster analysis classified genotypes into three clusters as largest cluster included genotypes with more than average yield along with high yielders G18, G11, G3, G5, G21 and unstable performance indicated by non parametric measures. Biplot analysis while considering first two significant principal components grouped the parametric and non parametric measures into four groups. The smaller group consisted of bi and S2 di and adjacent to group of non parametric measures Si(2), Si(6), NPi(2), NPi(3) and NPi(4).Keywords
Barley, Parametric, Non-Parametric Measures, Biplot Analysis, Hierarchical Clustering.References
- Dehghani, M.R., Majidi, M.M., Mirlohi, A. and Saeidi, G. (2016). Integrating parametric and non-parametric measures to investigate genotype x environment interactions in tall fescue. Euphytica, 208 : 583–596.
- Eberhart, S.A. and Russell, W.A. (1966). Stability parameters for comparing varieties. Crop Sci., 6 : 36–40.
- Finlay, K.W. and Wilkinson, G.N. (1963). Adaptation in a plant breeding programme. Aust. J. Agric. Res., 14 :742–754.
- Francis, T.R. and Kannenberg, L.W. (1978). Yield stability studied in short-season maize. I. A descriptive method for grouping genotypes. Can. J. Plant Sci., 58 :1029–1034.
- Hussein, M.A., Bjornstad, A. and Aastveit, A.H. (2000). SASG x ESTAB: A SAS program for computing genotype x environment stability statistics. Agron. J., 92: 454-459.
- Kang, M.S. (1988). A rank-sum method for selecting highyielding, stable corn genotypes. Cereal Res. Commun., 16 : 113– 115.
- Khalili, M. and Pour-Aboughadareh, A. (2016). Parametric and non-parametric measures for evaluating yield stability and adaptability in barley doubled haploid lines. J. Agr. Sci. Tech., 18 : 789–803.
- Kilic, Hasan (2012). Assessment of parametric and nonparametric methods for selecting stable and adapted spring bread wheat genotypes in multi – environments. J. Animal & Plant Sci., 22(2) : 390-398
- Lin, C.S., Binns, M.R. and Lefkovitch, L.P. (1986). Stability analysis: where do we stand? Crop Sci., 26 : 894–900.
- Lin, C.S. and Binns, M.R. (1988). A method for analyzing cultivar x location x year experiments: a new stability parameter. Theor. Appl. Genet., 76 : 425–430.
- Mohammadi, R. and Amri, A. (2008). A comparison of parametric and non-parametric methods for selecting stable and adapted durum wheat genotypes in variable environments. Euphytica, 159 : 419–432.
- Nassar, R. and Huehn, M. (1987). Studies on estimation of phenotypic stability: tests of significance for nonparametric measures of phenotypic stability. Biometrics, 43 : 45–53.
- Piepho, H.P. and Lotito, S. (1992). Rank correlation among parametric and nonparametric measures of phenotypic stability. Euphytica, 64: 221–225.
- Rea, R., De Sousa-Vieira, O., Díaz, A., Ramon, M., Briceno, R., George, J., Nino, M. and Demey, J. (2015). Assessment of yield stability in sugarcane genotypes using non-parametric methods. Agronomía Colombiana, 33(2): 131-138.
- Scapim, C.A., Pacheco, C.A.P., Teixeira, A.A.J., Vieira, R.A., Pinto, R.J.B. and Conrado, T.V. (2010). Correlations between the stability and adaptability statistics of popcorn cultivars. Euphytica, 174 : 209–218.
- Shukla, GK. (1972). Some statistical aspects of partitioning genotype-environmental components of variability. Heredity, 29 : 237–245.
- Temesgen, T., Kenenib, G., Seferaa, T. and Jarsob, M. (2015). Yield stability and relationships among stability parameters in faba bean (Viciafaba L.) genotypes. The Crop J., 3 : 258–268. doi: 10.1016/j. cj.2015.03.004
- 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.
- Vaezi, B., Pour-Aboughadareh, A., Mehraban, A., Hossein-Pour, T., Mohammadi, R., Armion, M. and Dorri, M.(2017). The use of parametric and non-parametric measures for selecting stable and adapted barley lines. Arch. Agron. & Soil Sci., DOI: 10.1080/03650340.2017.1369529
- Ward, J.H. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 58:236–244.
- Wricke, G. (1962). On a method of understanding the biological diversity in field research. Z. Pflanzenzucht, 47: 92–96.
- Wheat Genotypes Evaluated under Central Zone for Stability Analysis by Rank based Measures Considering BLUP and BLUE of Yield Values
Abstract Views :500 |
PDF Views:0
Authors
Ajay Verma
1,
G. P. Singh
1
Affiliations
1 ICAR-Indian Institute of Wheat and Barley Research, Karnal (Haryana), IN
1 ICAR-Indian Institute of Wheat and Barley Research, Karnal (Haryana), IN
Source
International Journal of Agricultural Sciences, Vol 16, No 2 (2020), Pagination: 105-121Abstract
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
- 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.