[go: up one dir, main page]

 
 
Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (110)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = GGE biplot

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
17 pages, 4646 KiB  
Article
Screening and Site Adaptability Evaluation of Qi-Nan Clones (Aquilaria sinensis) in Southern China
by Houzhen Hu, Daping Xu, Xiaofei Li, Xiaoying Fang, Zhiyi Cui, Xiaojin Liu, Jian Hao, Yu Su and Zhou Hong
Forests 2024, 15(10), 1753; https://doi.org/10.3390/f15101753 - 5 Oct 2024
Viewed by 451
Abstract
In recent years, plantations of Aquilaria sinensis in China have been dominated by Qi-nan, yet there remains limited research on the growth evaluation and breeding of these clones. In this study, a multi-point joint variance analysis, an additive main effect and multiplicative interaction [...] Read more.
In recent years, plantations of Aquilaria sinensis in China have been dominated by Qi-nan, yet there remains limited research on the growth evaluation and breeding of these clones. In this study, a multi-point joint variance analysis, an additive main effect and multiplicative interaction (AMMI) model, a weighted average of absolute scores (WAASB) stability index, and a genotype main effect plus a genotype-by-environment interaction (GGE) biplot were used to comprehensively analyze the yield, stability, and suitable environment of 25 3-year-old Qi-Nan clones from five sites in southern China. The results showed that all the growth traits exhibited significant differences in the clones, test sites, and interactions between the clones and test sites. The phenotypic variation coefficient (PCV) and genetic variation coefficient (GCV) of the clones’ growth traits at the different sites ranged from 16.56% to 32.09% and 5.24% to 27.06%, respectively, showing moderate variation. The medium–high repeatability (R) of tree height and ground diameter ranged from 0.50 to 0.96 and 0.69 to 0.98, respectively. Among the clones, Clones G04, G05, G10, G11 and G13 showed good growth performance and could be good candidates for breeding. Environmental effects were found to be the primary source of variation, with temperature and light primarily affecting growth, while rainfall influenced survival and preservation rates. Yangjiang (YJ) was found to be the most suitable experimental site for screening high-yield and stable clones across the different sites, whereas the tree height and ground diameter at the Chengmai (CM) site were significantly higher than at the other sites, and the Pingxiang (PX) and Zhangzhou (ZZ) sites showed poor growth performance. The findings suggest that Qi-nan clones are suitable for planting in southern China. There were also abundant genetic variations in germplasm resources for the Qi-nan clones. The five selected clones could be suitable for extensive planting. Therefore, large-scale testing is necessary for determining genetic improvements in Qi-nan clones, which will be conducive to the precise localization of their promotion areas. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Forest Tree Breeding, Testing, and Selection)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Map showing positions at five different sites in South China. The red triangle mark represents the test site. CM, FS, PX, YJ and ZZ denote the Chengmai site, Foshan site, Pingxiang site, Yangjiang site, and Zhangzhou site, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Tree height analysis based on AMMI biplot (<b>a</b>); ground diameter analysis based on AMMI biplot (<b>b</b>). The green numbers stand for clones and the blue characters stand for test sites.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>GGE biplot of “Mean vs. Stability” analysis based on tree height (<b>a</b>) and ground diameter (<b>b</b>); GGE biplot of “Which won where” analysis based on tree height (<b>c</b>); GGE biplot of “Which won where” analysis based on ground diameter (<b>d</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>GGE biplot of “Discriminativeness vs. Representativeness” analysis based on tree height (<b>a</b>) and ground diameter (<b>b</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>GGE biplot of “Ranking Environments” analysis and GGE biplot of “Ranking Genotype” analysis based on tree height (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>); GGE biplot of “Ranking Environments” analysis and GGE biplot of “Ranking Genotypes” analysis based on ground diameter (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5 Cont.
<p>GGE biplot of “Ranking Environments” analysis and GGE biplot of “Ranking Genotype” analysis based on tree height (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>); GGE biplot of “Ranking Environments” analysis and GGE biplot of “Ranking Genotypes” analysis based on ground diameter (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>).</p>
Full article ">
13 pages, 1564 KiB  
Article
Genotype by Environment Interaction (GEI) Effect for Potato Tuber Yield and Their Quality Traits in Organic Multi-Environment Domains in Poland
by Beata Ewa Tatarowska, Jarosław Plich, Dorota Milczarek, Dominika Boguszewska-Mańkowska and Krystyna Zarzyńska
Agriculture 2024, 14(9), 1591; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14091591 - 12 Sep 2024
Viewed by 496
Abstract
Potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.) are an important plant crop, whose yield may vary significantly depending on pedo-climatic conditions and genotype. Therefore, the analysis of the genotype × environment interaction (GEI) is mandatory for the setup of high-yielding and stable potato genotypes. This [...] Read more.
Potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.) are an important plant crop, whose yield may vary significantly depending on pedo-climatic conditions and genotype. Therefore, the analysis of the genotype × environment interaction (GEI) is mandatory for the setup of high-yielding and stable potato genotypes. This research evaluated the tuber yield (t ha−1) and yield characteristic of nine potato cultivars over 3 years and 4 organic farms in Poland by additive main effects and multiplicative interactions (AMMIs) and genotype plus genotype environment interaction (GGE) biplot analyses. The results of these analyses indicated significant differentiation of tuber yield among genotypes in individual environments. It was found that the environment (E, where E = L (localization) × Y (year)), genotype (G) and GEI, but not replication, significantly affected tuber yield. The AMMI analysis showed that the environment factor explained the most considerable part of tuber yield variations (52.3%), while the GEI and G factors explained a much lower part of the variations. The AMMI and GGE analyses identified five cvs.: Twister (46.4 t ha−1), Alouette (35.8 t ha−1), Kokra (34.8 t ha−1), Levante (33.1 t ha−1), and Gardena (30.4 t ha−1), as leading cultivars in the studied organic farms due to their high productivity coupled with yield stability. The statistical measure Kang (YSi) showed that these cvs. can be considered as adaptable to a wide range of organic environments. In the case of morphological traits of tubers (tuber shape and depth of tuber eyes), the most important factor influencing both these traits was genotype (G). Influence of other factors, like localization (L), year (Y), and all interactions (double and triple), were much less significant or insignificant. In case of taste and non-darkening of tuber flesh, the main effects which significantly affected the values of these traits were genotype (G) and localization (L). We observed that cooking type can vary depending on the year (Y) and the localization (L). Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Crop Genetics, Genomics and Breeding)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Map of Poland with location of organic farms.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Biplot analysis of GGE for first two IPC scores (IPC1 vs. IPC2) for tuber yield (2020–2022).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Biplot analysis of GGE for the IPC1 scores and tuber yield of 9 potato cultivars across 12 environments (2020–2022).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Taste of potato cultivars (2020–2021).</p>
Full article ">
16 pages, 3780 KiB  
Article
How Do Drought, Heat Stress, and Their Combination Impact Stem Reserve Mobilization in Wheat Genotypes?
by Behrouz Vaezi, Ahmad Arzani and Thomas H. Roberts
Agronomy 2024, 14(8), 1867; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14081867 - 22 Aug 2024
Viewed by 484
Abstract
Drought and heat stresses represent the primary agricultural challenges in arid and semiarid regions globally. In wheat, among the most vulnerable stages to these stresses is the grain-filling process. This critical phase relies heavily on photosynthesis during the late growth stage and the [...] Read more.
Drought and heat stresses represent the primary agricultural challenges in arid and semiarid regions globally. In wheat, among the most vulnerable stages to these stresses is the grain-filling process. This critical phase relies heavily on photosynthesis during the late growth stage and the mobilization of stem reserves. This study evaluated 60 spring wheat lines from the CIMMYT-Mexico Core Germplasm (CIMCOG) panel alongside four Iranian wheat cultivars under normal, drought, heat, and combined drought and heat stress conditions in two growing seasons. Several agronomic traits, including those associated with stem reserve mobilization, were assessed during the study. The combined analysis of variance revealed significant impacts of both independent and combined drought and heat stresses on the measured traits. Moreover, these stresses influenced the inter-relationships among the traits. High-yielding genotypes were identified through a combination of ranking and genotype and genotype by environment (GGE) biplot analysis. Among the top 40 genotypes, 21 were identified as environment-specific, while 19 remained common across at least two environments. Environmental dependence of grain yield responses to the sinks including stem reserve mobilization and spike reserve mobilization was found. Utilizing a machine learning algorithm, a regression tree analysis unveiled specific traits—including grain filling and canopy temperature—that contributed significantly to the high-yielding features of the identified genotypes under the various environmental conditions. These traits can serve as indirect selection criteria for enhancing yield under stressful conditions and can also be targeted for manipulation to improve wheat stress tolerance. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Crop Biology and Breeding under Environmental Stress)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Principal component analysis (PCA) of measured traits in normal, drought, heat, and combined heat and drought trials in two growing seasons. Trait abbreviations are the same as in <a href="#agronomy-14-01867-t001" class="html-table">Table 1</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>GGE biplot of genotype × environment interactions. Normal (N), drought (D), heat (H), and combined (DH) stress. The circles show the ten top genotypes under studied conditions. N: <span class="html-fig-inline" id="agronomy-14-01867-i001"><img alt="Agronomy 14 01867 i001" src="/agronomy/agronomy-14-01867/article_deploy/html/images/agronomy-14-01867-i001.png"/></span>, D: <span class="html-fig-inline" id="agronomy-14-01867-i002"><img alt="Agronomy 14 01867 i002" src="/agronomy/agronomy-14-01867/article_deploy/html/images/agronomy-14-01867-i002.png"/></span>, H: <span class="html-fig-inline" id="agronomy-14-01867-i003"><img alt="Agronomy 14 01867 i003" src="/agronomy/agronomy-14-01867/article_deploy/html/images/agronomy-14-01867-i003.png"/></span>, and DH: <span class="html-fig-inline" id="agronomy-14-01867-i004"><img alt="Agronomy 14 01867 i004" src="/agronomy/agronomy-14-01867/article_deploy/html/images/agronomy-14-01867-i004.png"/></span>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Regression tree of yield components of the top 10 genotypes: (<b>A</b>): normal, (<b>B</b>): drought stress, (<b>C</b>): heat stress, and (<b>D</b>): combined heat and drought stress. The ordinal CHAID algorithm was used for analysis. Each rectangle represents its respective branch node. The attribute value interval is shown above the associated node. The node number, the percentage of genotypes located in each branch, and the variance of the corresponding traits are shown inside each node. Trait abbreviations are the same as in <a href="#agronomy-14-01867-t001" class="html-table">Table 1</a>.</p>
Full article ">
15 pages, 1746 KiB  
Article
Effect of Genotype × Environment Interactions on the Yield and Stability of Sugarcane Varieties in Ecuador: GGE Biplot Analysis by Location and Year
by Luis Henry Torres-Ordoñez, Juan Diego Valenzuela-Cobos, Fabricio Guevara-Viejó, Purificación Galindo-Villardón and Purificación Vicente-Galindo
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14(15), 6665; https://doi.org/10.3390/app14156665 - 30 Jul 2024
Viewed by 779
Abstract
Yield and stability are desirable characteristics that crops need to have high agronomic value; sugarcane stands out globally due to its diverse range of products and by-products. However, genotype-environment (G × E) interactions can affect the overall performance of a crop. The objective [...] Read more.
Yield and stability are desirable characteristics that crops need to have high agronomic value; sugarcane stands out globally due to its diverse range of products and by-products. However, genotype-environment (G × E) interactions can affect the overall performance of a crop. The objective of this study is to identify genotypes with the highest yield and stability, as well as to understand their independent and interactive effects. A collection of 10 sugarcane varieties was evaluated, including Colombian, Dominican, Ecuadorian lines, and a group of clones planted across five different locations from 2018 to 2020. A two-way ANOVA along with the GGE biplot technique were used to analyze yield and stability. The ANOVA model shows highly significant effects in all cases (p < 0.001) except for the genotype by year and sector interaction (G × Y × S); however, the decomposition by sectors reveals a significant triple interaction in sector 04 (p < 0.05). The GGE biplot model accounted for up to 74.77% of the total variance explained in its PC1 and PC2 components. It also highlighted the group of clones as having the highest yield and environmental instability, and the Ecuadorian varieties EC-07 and EC-08 as having the best yield-stability relationship. We conclude that the combined results of the ANOVA and GGE biplot models provide a more synergistic and effective evaluation of sugarcane varieties, offering theoretical and practical bases for decision-making in the selection of specific varieties. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Big Data and AI for Food and Agriculture)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>GGE biplot.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Which-on-where.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Mean vs. Stability.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Discriminativeness vs. representativeness and ranking genotypes: (<b>a</b>) shows the stability of genotypes and environments; (<b>b</b>) shows the rankings generated by the GGE model.</p>
Full article ">
1 pages, 132 KiB  
Correction
Correction: Sharma et al. Estimation of Heterosis and the Combining Ability Effect for Yield and Its Attributes in Field Pea (Pisum sativum L.) Using PCA and GGE Biplots. Horticulturae 2023, 9, 256
by Amit Sharma, Rajesh Yadav, Ravika Sheoran, Deepak Kaushik, Tapan Kumar Mohanta, Kartik Sharma, Alpa Yadav, Parmdeep Singh Dhanda and Prashant Kaushik
Horticulturae 2024, 10(7), 760; https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10070760 - 18 Jul 2024
Viewed by 299
Abstract
The Horticulturae Editorial Office wishes to make the following changes to the author’s paper [...] Full article
19 pages, 2414 KiB  
Article
Compatibility and Stability Analysis of Haploid Inducers under Different Source Germplasm and Seasons in Maize Using GGE Biplot
by Abil Dermail, Thomas Lübberstedt, Willy Bayuardi Suwarno, Sompong Chankaew, Kamol Lertrat, Vinitchan Ruanjaichon and Khundej Suriharn
Agronomy 2024, 14(7), 1505; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14071505 - 11 Jul 2024
Viewed by 679
Abstract
Multiple factors can affect the R1-nj purple kernel expression and seed set, reducing its efficiency in identifying haploids in maize. The complex interaction among the haploid inducer (HI), source germplasm (SG), and season (S) is inevitable in in vivo maize haploid induction but [...] Read more.
Multiple factors can affect the R1-nj purple kernel expression and seed set, reducing its efficiency in identifying haploids in maize. The complex interaction among the haploid inducer (HI), source germplasm (SG), and season (S) is inevitable in in vivo maize haploid induction but could be used through compatibility and stability tests. We tested five HI genotypes on 25 distinct source germplasm in two different seasons of tropical savanna in Thailand. The dry season was more suitable than the rainy season for haploid induction. We noticed varying degrees of R1-nj inhibition among the 25 tropical source germplasm, with some of them exhibiting significant issues with the R1-nj purple kernel expression. Therefore, using the R1-nj alone may not provide accurate ploidy identification in maize. Despite the intense R1-nj expression, haploid inducer BHI306 showed poor stability and compatibility with tropical source germplasm for pollination rate and seed set during the rainy season. The GGE biplot suggested KHI42 and KHI64 as the most compatible haploid inducers under their respective two different mega-source germplasm for the pollination rate and R1-nj seed set. These findings can guide breeders in selecting the most compatible and stable haploid inducers under varying conditions. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Crop Breeding and Genetics)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>The phenotypic variation of <span class="html-italic">R1-nj</span> purple kernel expressions in maize at the physiological maturity stage. (<b>a</b>) <span class="html-italic">R1-nj</span> intensity of endosperm (IED) using a rating scale of 1 to 5. (<b>b</b>) <span class="html-italic">R1-nj</span> intensity of embryo (IEM) using a rating scale of 1 to 5. (<b>c</b>) <span class="html-italic">R1-nj</span> area marked of endosperm (AED) using a rating scale of 1 to 5.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>The distributions of five haploid inducers in each source germplasm for pollination rate (%), <span class="html-italic">R1-nj</span> seed set (%), and <span class="html-italic">R1-nj</span> purple kernel expression in the rainy season of 2021. 1: Nei9008; 2: Takfa1; 3: Takfa7; 4: P789; 5: P789-S; 6: S7328; 7: NS5-S; 8: P789/NS5; 9: NS5/P789; 10: Y.18W-6-4; 11: 12C5-4; 12: Wan Dok Khun; 13: Jumbo Sweet; 14: Jumbo Sweet-S; 15: CNW18178; 16: TSG1910; 17: RLW4; 18: KKU WX-1; 19: W54/SQ; 20: W54/DEL; 21: TSC/H3-1-8; 22: Tein5-5-5; 23: Tein NS; 24: Pop. <span class="html-italic">bt</span>-5; 25: Pop. <span class="html-italic">se</span>-6.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>The distributions of five haploid inducers in each source germplasm for pollination rate (%), <span class="html-italic">R1-nj</span> seed set (%), and <span class="html-italic">R1-nj</span> purple kernel expression in the dry season of 2021/2022. 1: Nei9008; 2: Takfa1; 3: Takfa7; 4: P789; 5: P789-S; 6: S7328; 7: NS5-S; 8: P789/NS5; 9: NS5/P789; 10: Y.18W-6-4; 11: 12C5-4; 12: Wan Dok Khun; 13: Jumbo Sweet; 14: Jumbo Sweet-S; 15: CNW18178; 16: TSG1910; 17: RLW4; 18: KKU WX-1; 19: W54/SQ; 20: W54/DEL; 21: TSC/H3-1-8; 22: Tein5-5-5; 23: Tein NS; 24: Pop. <span class="html-italic">bt</span>-5; 25: Pop. <span class="html-italic">se</span>-6.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>GGE biplot of 5 haploid inducers (HIs, blue numbers) evaluated in 25 source germplasm (SG, red numbers) in the rainy season (<b>left</b>) and dry season (<b>right</b>) for the pollination rate (%). Perpendicular lines (black dotted lines) are drawn to each side of the polygon (blue dotted lines), dividing the biplot into sectors. The vertex number in each sector is the best HI for the given trait in SG that fell in the sector. The SG vectors (green lines), which are the lines connecting the SG to the biplot origin, indicate discrimination levels. Numbers in blue: 1: KHI42; 2: KHI54; 3: KHI64; 4: K7; 5: BHI306. Numbers in red: 1: Nei9008; 2: Takfa1; 3: Takfa7; 4: P789; 5: P789-S; 6: S7328; 7: NS5-S; 8: P789/NS5; 9: NS5/P789; 10: Y.18W-6-4; 11: 12C5-4; 12: Wan Dok Khun; 13: Jumbo Sweet; 14: Jumbo Sweet-S; 15: CNW18178; 16: TSG1910; 17: RLW4; 18: KKU WX-1; 19: W54/SQ; 20: W54/DEL; 21: TSC/H3-1-8; 22: Tein5-5-5; 23: Tein NS; 24: Pop. <span class="html-italic">bt</span>-5; 25: Pop. <span class="html-italic">se</span>-6.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>GGE biplot of 5 haploid inducers (HIs, blue numbers) evaluated in 25 source germplasm (SG, red numbers) in the rainy season (<b>left</b>) and dry season (<b>right</b>) for the <span class="html-italic">R1-nj</span> seed set (%). Perpendicular lines (black dotted lines) are drawn to each side of the polygon (blue dotted lines), dividing the biplot into sectors. The vertex number in each sector is the best HI for the given trait in SG that fell in the sector. The SG vectors (green lines), which are the lines connecting the SG to the biplot origin, indicate discrimination levels. Numbers in blue: 1: KHI42; 2: KHI54; 3: KHI64; 4: K7; 5: BHI306. Numbers in red: 1: Nei9008; 2: Takfa1; 3: Takfa7; 4: P789; 5: P789-S; 6: S7328; 7: NS5-S; 8: P789/NS5; 9: NS5/P789; 10: Y.18W-6-4; 11: 12C5-4; 12: Wan Dok Khun; 13: Jumbo Sweet; 14: Jumbo Sweet-S; 15: CNW18178; 16: TSG1910; 17: RLW4; 18: KKU WX-1; 19: W54/SQ; 20: W54/DEL; 21: TSC/H3-1-8; 22: Tein5-5-5; 23: Tein NS; 24: Pop. <span class="html-italic">bt</span>-5; 25: Pop. <span class="html-italic">se</span>-6.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>GGE biplot of 5 haploid inducers (HIs, blue numbers) evaluated in 25 source germplasm (SG, red numbers) in the rainy season (<b>left</b>) and dry season (<b>right</b>) for the <span class="html-italic">R1-nj</span> area marked of endosperm. Perpendicular lines (black dotted lines) are drawn to each side of the polygon (blue dotted lines), dividing the biplot into sectors. The vertex number in each sector is the best HI for the given trait in SG that fell in the sector. The SG vectors (green lines), which are the lines connecting the SG to the biplot origin, indicate discrimination levels. Numbers in blue: 1: KHI42; 2: KHI54; 3: KHI64; 4: K7; 5: BHI306. Numbers in red: 1: Nei9008; 2: Takfa1; 3: Takfa7; 4: P789; 5: P789-S; 6: S7328; 7: NS5-S; 8: P789/NS5; 9: NS5/P789; 10: Y.18W-6-4; 11: 12C5-4; 12: Wan Dok Khun; 13: Jumbo Sweet; 14: Jumbo Sweet-S; 15: CNW18178; 16: TSG1910; 17: RLW4; 18: KKU WX-1; 19: W54/SQ; 20: W54/DEL; 21: TSC/H3-1-8; 22: Tein5-5-5; 23: Tein NS; 24: Pop. <span class="html-italic">bt</span>-5; 25: Pop. <span class="html-italic">se</span>-6.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>GGE biplot of 5 haploid inducers (HIs, blue numbers) evaluated in 25 source germplasm (SG, red numbers) in the rainy season (<b>left</b>) and dry season (<b>right</b>) for the <span class="html-italic">R1-nj</span> intensity of endosperm. Perpendicular lines (black dotted lines) are drawn to each side of the polygon (blue dotted lines), dividing the biplot into sectors. The vertex number in each sector is the best HI for the given trait in SG that fell in the sector. The SG vectors (green lines), which are the lines connecting the SG to the biplot origin, indicate discrimination levels. Numbers in blue: 1: KHI42; 2: KHI54; 3: KHI64; 4: K7; 5: BHI306. Numbers in red: 1: Nei9008; 2: Takfa1; 3: Takfa7; 4: P789; 5: P789-S; 6: S7328; 7: NS5-S; 8: P789/NS5; 9: NS5/P789; 10: Y.18W-6-4; 11: 12C5-4; 12: Wan Dok Khun; 13: Jumbo Sweet; 14: Jumbo Sweet-S; 15: CNW18178; 16: TSG1910; 17: RLW4; 18: KKU WX-1; 19: W54/SQ; 20: W54/DEL; 21: TSC/H3-1-8; 22: Tein5-5-5; 23: Tein NS; 24: Pop. <span class="html-italic">bt</span>-5; 25: Pop. <span class="html-italic">se</span>-6.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>GGE biplot of 5 haploid inducers (HIs, blue numbers) evaluated in 25 source germplasm (SG, red numbers) in the rainy season (<b>left</b>) and dry season (<b>right</b>) for the <span class="html-italic">R1-nj</span> intensity of embryo. Perpendicular lines (black dotted lines) are drawn to each side of the polygon (blue dotted lines), dividing the biplot into sectors. The vertex number in each sector is the best HI for the given trait in SG that fell in the sector. The SG vectors (green lines), which are the lines connecting the SG to the biplot origin, indicate discrimination levels. Numbers in blue: 1: KHI42; 2: KHI54; 3: KHI64; 4: K7; 5: BHI306. Numbers in red: 1: Nei9008; 2: Takfa1; 3: Takfa7; 4: P789; 5: P789-S; 6: S7328; 7: NS5-S; 8: P789/NS5; 9: NS5/P789; 10: Y.18W-6-4; 11: 12C5-4; 12: Wan Dok Khun; 13: Jumbo Sweet; 14: Jumbo Sweet-S; 15: CNW18178; 16: TSG1910; 17: RLW4; 18: KKU WX-1; 19: W54/SQ; 20: W54/DEL; 21: TSC/H3-1-8; 22: Tein5-5-5; 23: Tein NS; 24: Pop. <span class="html-italic">bt</span>-5; 25: Pop. <span class="html-italic">se</span>-6.</p>
Full article ">
16 pages, 4429 KiB  
Article
Influence of Genotype × Environment Interaction on Yield Stability of Maize Hybrids with AMMI Model and GGE Biplot
by Chenyu Ma, Chaorui Liu and Zhilan Ye
Agronomy 2024, 14(5), 1000; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14051000 - 9 May 2024
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1099
Abstract
Maize yields perform differently in different environments, so the selection of suitable genotypes in diverse environments is essential for variety selection to enable better site-specific planting. Hence, the objective of the study was to estimate the productivity of 11 maize hybrids (G) in [...] Read more.
Maize yields perform differently in different environments, so the selection of suitable genotypes in diverse environments is essential for variety selection to enable better site-specific planting. Hence, the objective of the study was to estimate the productivity of 11 maize hybrids (G) in 10 different environments (E) and select high-yield and stable varieties for adaptive cultivation in 2022 and 2023. The combined analysis of variance showed that G (4%), E (50%), and their interaction (31%) had a significant effect (p < 0.01) on maize yield, with E factors contributing the most. In addition, the average yield ranged from 9398 kg/ha to 10,574 kg/ha, and ZF-2208 and DY-519 performed relatively well in both years. The AMMI model showed that the varieties DY-213, DY-605, and DY-519 had high and stable production in 2022, whereas it was ZF-2209 and LX-24 in 2023. The “W-W-W” biplot showed that DY-519 and JG-18 were the optimal varieties in 2022, and ZF-2208 and ZF-2210 were optimal in 2023. The “mean vs. stability” biplot indicated that JG-18, DY-605, and DY-213 (in 2022) and ZF-2208, LX-24, and ZF-2209 (in 2023) were the optimal varieties. Additionally, both the discrimination and representative biplot and the ranking biplot reflected that BinChuan and ShiDian (in 2022) and GengMa and YongSheng (in 2023) were the ideal test environments. In conclusion, DY-519, DY-605, ZF-2208, and LX-24 hybrids could be used for variety promotion. Moreover, BinChuan, ShiDian, GengMa, and YongSheng were the ideal test environments for selecting varieties. Therefore, the AMMI model and GGE biplot can be used to complement each other for a comprehensive evaluation of maize yield. In this way, excellent maize hybrids with high yield and stability can be selected, which could promote the selection and popularization of varieties and shorten the breeding process. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Crop Breeding and Genetics)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Mean yield (kg/ha) of 11 maize hybrids over two years. Different letters indicate significant differences (<span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Clustering heat map of yield: horizontal coordinate is the hybrid, vertical coordinate is the test site, (<b>left</b>) is 2022, (<b>right</b>) is 2023. Environmental and genotypic codes are given in <a href="#agronomy-14-01000-t001" class="html-table">Table 1</a> and <a href="#agronomy-14-01000-t002" class="html-table">Table 2</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Description and correlation analysis of each trait. Note: (<b>A</b>), 2022; (<b>B</b>), 2023. ***, ** and * represent <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.00, <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.01 and &lt; 0.05 in the upper panel, respectively. The lower panel shows scatter plots for each pair of traits. The distribution of each phenotype is shown along the diagonal.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>AMMI1 biplot. (<b>A</b>) AMMI1 biplot in 2022; (<b>B</b>) AMMI1 biplot in 2023. Environmental codes are in <a href="#agronomy-14-01000-t001" class="html-table">Table 1</a> and genotypic codes are given in <a href="#agronomy-14-01000-t002" class="html-table">Table 2</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>AMMI2 biplot. (<b>A</b>) AMMI2 biplot in 2022; (<b>B</b>) AMMI2 biplot in 2023. Environmental codes are in <a href="#agronomy-14-01000-t001" class="html-table">Table 1</a> and genotypic codes are given in <a href="#agronomy-14-01000-t002" class="html-table">Table 2</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>“Which won where” model of GGE biplot for 11 maize hybrids (G1–G11) evaluated in 10 environments. (<b>A</b>) GGE biplot in 2022; (<b>B</b>) GGE biplot in 2023. Environmental codes are in <a href="#agronomy-14-01000-t001" class="html-table">Table 1</a> and genotypic codes are given in <a href="#agronomy-14-01000-t002" class="html-table">Table 2</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>The productivity and stability of 11 maize hybrids were assessed in 10 environments using GGE biplot analysis. (<b>A</b>) GGE biplot in 2022; (<b>B</b>) GGE biplot in 2023. Environmental codes are in <a href="#agronomy-14-01000-t001" class="html-table">Table 1</a> and genotypic codes are given in <a href="#agronomy-14-01000-t002" class="html-table">Table 2</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>GGE biplot for the evaluation of the differentiating power and representativeness of 10 environments. (<b>A</b>) GGE biplot in 2022; (<b>B</b>) GGE biplot in 2023. Environmental codes are in <a href="#agronomy-14-01000-t001" class="html-table">Table 1</a> and genotypic codes are given in <a href="#agronomy-14-01000-t002" class="html-table">Table 2</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Ranking of genotypes by the GGE biplot. (<b>A</b>) GGE biplot in 2022; (<b>B</b>) GGE biplot in 2023. Environmental codes are in <a href="#agronomy-14-01000-t001" class="html-table">Table 1</a> and genotypic codes are given in <a href="#agronomy-14-01000-t002" class="html-table">Table 2</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Ranking of environments under the GGE biplot. (<b>A</b>) GGE biplot in 2022; (<b>B</b>) GGE biplot in 2023. Refer to <a href="#agronomy-14-01000-t001" class="html-table">Table 1</a> for the environment codes.</p>
Full article ">
15 pages, 3384 KiB  
Article
Analysis of Combining Ability to Obtain Tropical Carrot Hybrids for Production Traits
by Fernanda Gabriela Teixeira Coelho, Gabriel Mascarenhas Maciel, Ana Carolina Silva Siquieroli, Camila Soares de Oliveira, Nádia Nardely Lacerda Durães Parrella, Amilton Ferreira da Silva, José Magno Queiroz Luz and Ana Paula Oliveira Nogueira
Horticulturae 2024, 10(5), 442; https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10050442 - 26 Apr 2024
Viewed by 930
Abstract
Carrots (Daucus carota L.), a globally significant vegetable, lack extensive research on heterotic groups and diallel analysis to generate hybrid combinations. Thus, the objective of this study was to assess combining abilities and identify optimal carrot parents for producing hybrids suitable for [...] Read more.
Carrots (Daucus carota L.), a globally significant vegetable, lack extensive research on heterotic groups and diallel analysis to generate hybrid combinations. Thus, the objective of this study was to assess combining abilities and identify optimal carrot parents for producing hybrids suitable for tropical climates with elevated metabolite levels. Twenty carrot hybrids, ten parent plants, and three commercial cultivars were evaluated during the summers of 2020/2021 and 2021/2022. Agronomic evaluations were carried out and chlorophyll and carotenoid levels were determined, followed by a diallel analysis using Griffing’s Method III and GGE biplot analysis. There were significant general combining ability (GCA) effects for various agronomic traits, suggesting additive genetic effects. Based on GCA, cultivars 5, 4, and 2 were the most promising parents. Specific combining ability (SCA) revealed that hybrids 1 × 2 and 3 × 5 stood out in environment 1, whereas hybrids 1 × 5 and 5 × 3 performed well in environment 2. The GGE biplot analysis showed that hybrids 1 × 2 and 3 × 2 displayed larger average root diameters, belonged to the group with the best bolting percentages, and exhibited stability across environments. Moreover, hybrids 2 × 4, 3 × 1, 4 × 1, and 4 × 2 exhibited higher metabolite levels. These findings suggest the feasibility of obtaining superior hybrids tailored for the tropical carrot market. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Crosses between 5 fertile carrot parents and their 5 respective male sterile isogenic lines, in a complete diallel model (5 × 4). P—parental; MS—male sterile; F—fertile.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Climograph representing the experimental period in Carandaí, MG, Brazil (summers of 2020/2021 and 2021/2022).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Flowchart of crossing stages, data collection in the field, biochemical analysis, and data analysis in tropical carrot entries in the city of Carandaí, MG.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Discriminative vs. representative view of the GGE biplot for tropical carrot entries evaluated in Carandaí-Brazil (total 100%). CAR21—summer 2020/2021 and CAR22—summer 2021/2022. (<b>A</b>) Bolting percentage (%); (<b>B</b>) root diameter (cm).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Mean vs. stability view of the GGE biplot for tropical carrot entries evaluated in Carandaí-Brazil (total 100%). CAR21—summer 2020/2021 and CAR22—summer 2021/2022. (<b>A</b>) Bolting percentage (%); (<b>B</b>) root diameter (cm).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Polygon view of the GGE biplot for the which—won—where pattern for tropical carrot entries and environments in Carandaí, Brazil (total 100%). CAR21—summer 2020/2021 and CAR22—summer 2021/2022. (<b>A</b>) Bolting percentage (%); (<b>B</b>) root diameter (cm).</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Pigment contents in the leaf and root of tropical carrot entries evaluated in Carandaí, Brazil (µg·g<sup>−1</sup> of fresh tissue). (<b>A</b>) Chlorophyll a content in the leaf. (<b>B</b>) Chlorophyll b content in the leaf. (<b>C</b>) Total chlorophyll content in the leaf. (<b>D</b>) Total carotenoid content in the leaf. (<b>E</b>) Total carotenoid content in the root. (<b>F</b>) Lycopene content in the root.</p>
Full article ">
22 pages, 10107 KiB  
Article
Stability Analysis and Identification of Superior Hybrids in Pearl Millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.] Using the Multi Trait Stability Index
by Vikas Khandelwal, Rumit Patel, Khushwant B. Choudhary, S. B. Pawar, M. S. Patel, K. Iyanar, K. D. Mungra, Sushil Kumar and C. Tara Satyavathi
Plants 2024, 13(8), 1101; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13081101 - 15 Apr 2024
Viewed by 1250
Abstract
Pearl millet stands as an important staple food and feed for arid and semi-arid regions of India and South Africa. It is also a quick supplier of important micronutrients like Fe and Zn via grain to combat micronutrient deficiencies among people in developing [...] Read more.
Pearl millet stands as an important staple food and feed for arid and semi-arid regions of India and South Africa. It is also a quick supplier of important micronutrients like Fe and Zn via grain to combat micronutrient deficiencies among people in developing countries. India has notably spearheaded advancements in pearl millet production and productivity through the All India Coordinated Pearl Millet Improvement Project. There were 21 hybrids evaluated over arid and semi-arid ecologies of the western and southern regions of India. AMMI and GGE biplot models were adopted to recommend a specific hybrid for the particular locality. A joint analysis of variation indicated a significant genotype–environment interaction for most of the agronomical and grain micronutrient parameters. Pearson’s correlation values dissected the significant and positive correlation among agronomic traits and the negative correlation with grain micronutrient traits. GGE biplot analysis recommended the SHT 106 as a dual-purpose hybrid and SHT 115 as a biofortified hybrid for the grain’s Fe and Zn content. SHT 110 and SHT 108 were selected as stable and high grain yield-producing hybrids across all environments and specifically for E1, E2, and E4 as per the Which-Won-Where and What biplot. SHT 109 and SHT 103 hybrids were stable and high dry fodder yield-producing hybrids across all environments. In this study, the Multi-Trait Stability Index (MTSI) was employed to select the most stable and high-performing hybrids for all traits. It selected SHT 120, SHT 106, and SHT 104 for stability and great performance across all environments. These findings underscored the significance of tailored hybrid recommendations and the potential of pearl millet in addressing both food security and malnutrition challenges in various agro-ecological regions. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Crop Improvement under a Changing Climate)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Box plots showing mean performances of the studied traits across all environments during Summer-2021. DF: days to 50% flowering, DM: days to maturity, PH: plant height, NPT: number of productive tillers per plant, PL: panicle length, PD: panicle diameter, TSW:1000 seed weight, PP: plant population at harvest, SS: seed set percentage under bagging condition, GY: grain yield, DFY: dry fodder yield, Fe: grain iron content, Zn: grain zinc content, ENV: environments, E1: Mandor, E2: Jamnagar, E3: S. K. Nagar, E4: Ahmedabad, E5: NARP, Aurangabad, E6: Coimbatore.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>AMMI I biplot of 21 pearl millet hybrids (Blue text) evaluated in six environments (Green text) during summer-2021 (<b>A</b>) GY: Grain yield, (<b>B</b>) DFY: Dry fodder yield, (<b>C</b>) Fe: Iron content, (<b>D</b>) Zn: Zinc content. PC: principal component.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>AMMI II biplot of 21 pearl millet hybrids (Blue text) evaluated in six environments (Green text) during summer-2021. Biplot developed from the values of PC I and PC II derived from AMMI ANOVA (<b>A</b>) Grain yield, (<b>B</b>) Dry fodder yield, (<b>C</b>) Iron content, (<b>D</b>) Zinc content.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Pearson’s correlation network plot. DF: days to 50% flowering, DM: days to maturity, PH: plant Height, NPT: number of productive tillers per plant, PL: panicle length, PD: panicle diameter, TW:1000 seed weight, PP: plant population at harvest, SS: seed set percentage under bagging condition, GY: grain yield, DFY: dry fodder yield, Fe: iron content, Zn: zinc content.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Which-won-where view of 21 pearl millet hybrids (Blue text) evaluated in six environments (Green text) during summer-2021. (<b>A</b>) Grain yield, (<b>B</b>) Dry fodder yield, (<b>C</b>) Iron content, (<b>D</b>) Zinc content.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Average environment coordination (AEC) view of the GGE-biplot based on environment-focused scaling and genotype-focused singular-value partitioning for the mean performance and stability of 21 pearl millet hybrids (Blue text) evaluated in six environments (Green text) during summer 2021. (<b>A</b>) Grain yield, (<b>B</b>) Dry fodder yield, (<b>C</b>) Iron content, (<b>D</b>) Zinc content.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>GGE biplot view of the discriminativeness and representativeness developed using environment-focused centering and symmetrical method of singular-value partitioning of 21 pearl millet hybrids (Blue text) evaluated in six environments (Green text) during summer 2021. (<b>A</b>) Grain yield, (<b>B</b>) Dry fodder yield, (<b>C</b>) Iron content, (<b>D</b>) Zinc content.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Mean performance × WAASB biplot based on combined interpretation of productivity and stability (WAASB) for 21 pearl millet hybrids (Blue text) evaluated in six environments (Green text) during summer-2021. (<b>A</b>) Grain yield, (<b>B</b>) Dry fodder yield, (<b>C</b>) Iron content, (<b>D</b>) Zinc content.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Hybrid ranking and selected hybrids among 21 pearl millet hybrids for multi-trait stability index (MTSI) view considering 15% selection intensity.</p>
Full article ">
17 pages, 3361 KiB  
Article
Modeling Stability of Alfalfa Yield and Main Quality Traits
by Vasileios Greveniotis, Elisavet Bouloumpasi, Adriana Skendi, Athanasios Korkovelos, Dimitrios Kantas, Stylianos Zotis and Constantinos G. Ipsilandis
Agriculture 2024, 14(4), 542; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14040542 - 29 Mar 2024
Viewed by 998
Abstract
Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) is used to support livestock. A stability study was carried out over three years. The stability indices for yield and main quality characteristics such as plant height, number of nodes, the yield of green mass and dry matter, [...] Read more.
Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) is used to support livestock. A stability study was carried out over three years. The stability indices for yield and main quality characteristics such as plant height, number of nodes, the yield of green mass and dry matter, crude protein and fiber (%), and ash (%), were examined. Statistical analysis revealed significant differences that indicated the presence of high genotype–year interactions. Heritability was higher in the case of qualitative traits than quantitative traits. The most intriguing correlation was between green mass yield and crude protein content because positive correlations may lead to indirect and simultaneous selection. According to the statistical biplot models AMMI and GGE, the best genotypes for almost all traits to use, regardless of the environment and cultivation type, were the G8 (Population 2) followed by cultivar G3 (Yliki). Despite the high index values shown by the parameter number of nodes, the latter and yield showed low heritability. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Meteorological data for the alfalfa period of cultivation (2007–2009).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Green mass yield (t ha<sup>−1</sup>) stability analysis, based on (<b>a</b>) AMMI adaptation map; (<b>b</b>) AMMI1 biplot; (<b>c</b>) environmental stability GGE biplot; (<b>d</b>) genotypic stability GGE biplot; and (<b>e</b>) which-won-where GGE biplot for specific adaptability of genotypes over environments. The genotypes closer to the ideal genotype are the most desirable.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Dry matter yield (t ha<sup>−1</sup>) stability analysis based on (<b>a</b>) the AMMI adaptation map; (<b>b</b>) the AMMI1 biplot; (<b>c</b>) the environmental stability GGE biplot; (<b>d</b>) the genotypic stability GGE biplot; and (<b>e</b>) the which-won-where GGE biplot for the specific adaptability of genotypes over environments. The genotypes closer to the ideal genotype are the most desirable.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Crude protein content (%DM) stability analysis based on (<b>a</b>) the AMMI adaptation map; (<b>b</b>) the AMMI1 biplot; (<b>c</b>) the environmental stability GGE biplot; (<b>d</b>) the genotypic stability GGE biplot; and (<b>e</b>) the which-won-where GGE biplot for the specific adaptability of genotypes over environments. The genotypes closer to the ideal genotype are the most desirable.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Heatmap of correlations based on the variables measured in alfalfa using Ward’s method on the standardized data to define distances between clusters. The color of the square areas in the map dendrogram gradually changes from blue that indicates low values to red that indicates high values. OIK 1 to 4 correspond to population 1 to 4.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>First stage component analysis with all characteristics. OIK 1 to 4 correspond to population 1 to 4.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Second stage component analysis by missing ash content. OIK 1 to 4 correspond to population 1 to 4.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>A model of analyzing trait stability in alfalfa.</p>
Full article ">
19 pages, 5797 KiB  
Article
Virulence Spectra of Hungarian Pyrenophora teres f. teres Isolates Collected from Experimental Fields Show Continuous Variation without Specific Isolate × Barley Differential Interactions
by József Bakonyi, Diána Seress, Zoltán Á. Nagy, Ildikó Csorba, Mónika Cséplő, Tibor A. Marton, Anke Martin and Klára Mészáros
J. Fungi 2024, 10(3), 184; https://doi.org/10.3390/jof10030184 - 28 Feb 2024
Viewed by 1388
Abstract
Pyrenophora teres f. teres (Ptt), the causal agent of net form net blotch (NFNB) disease, is an important and widespread pathogen of barley. This study aimed to quantify and characterize the virulence of Ptt isolates collected from experimental fields of barley in Hungary. [...] Read more.
Pyrenophora teres f. teres (Ptt), the causal agent of net form net blotch (NFNB) disease, is an important and widespread pathogen of barley. This study aimed to quantify and characterize the virulence of Ptt isolates collected from experimental fields of barley in Hungary. Infection responses across 20 barley differentials were obtained from seedling assays of 34 Ptt isolates collected from three Hungarian breeding stations between 2008 and 2018. Twenty-eight Ptt pathotypes were identified. Correspondence analysis followed by hierarchical clustering on the principal components and host-by-pathogen GGE biplots suggested a continuous range of virulence and an absence of specific isolate × barley differential interactions. The isolates were classified into four isolate groups (IG) using agglomerative hierarchical clustering. One IG could be distinguished from other IGs based on avirulence/virulence on one to five barley differentials. Several barley differentials expressed strong resistance against multiple Ptt isolates and may be useful in the development of NFNB-resistant barley cultivars in Hungary. Our results emphasize that the previously developed international barley differential set needs to be improved and adapted to the Hungarian Ptt population. This is the first report on the pathogenic variations of Ptt in Hungary. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Fungal Pathogens and Host Plants)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Symmetric biplot of the correspondence analysis based on the frequency profiles of <span class="html-italic">Pyrenophora teres</span> f. <span class="html-italic">teres</span> isolates (blue dots) in four avirulence/virulence classes (red triangles). The M6 and M9 isolates are represented with a single dot as they have identical frequency profiles. The color scale for the isolates and the length of avirulence/virulence class vectors are proportional to the variance contributing to the plane. HCPC clusters (A, B, and C) are marked by ellipses.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Isolate-focused mean vs. stability GGE biplot showing the general virulence of <span class="html-italic">Pyrenophora teres</span> f. <span class="html-italic">teres</span> isolates and their specificity to the differentials. The biplot was drawn with the following settings: scaling = no, centering = tester, SVP = entry-focused. Bee = Beecher, Bot = Botond, C20 = C-20019, CI11 = CI 11458, CI42 = CI 4207, CI57 = CI 5791, CI981 = CI 9819, CI982 = CI 9825, CLS = Canadian Lake Shore, Cor = Corvett, Dia = Diamond, Har = Harrington, Hrb = Harbin, Ini = MV Initium, Man = Manchurian, Pri = Prior, Seb = Sebastian, Ski = Skiff, Syl = Sylphid, Tif = Tifang.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Which-won-where GGE biplot showing the interaction pattern of <span class="html-italic">Pyrenophora teres</span> f. <span class="html-italic">teres</span> isolates with barley differentials. The biplot was drawn with the following settings: scaling = no, centering = tester, SVP = dual metric. See <a href="#jof-10-00184-f002" class="html-fig">Figure 2</a> for the full names of the barley lines.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>GGE biplot showing the ability of barley differentials to discriminate amongst <span class="html-italic">Pyrenophora teres</span> f. <span class="html-italic">teres</span> isolates in terms of virulence. The biplot was drawn using the following settings: scaling = no, centering = tester, SVP = tester-focused. See <a href="#jof-10-00184-f002" class="html-fig">Figure 2</a> for full names of barley lines.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Heat map and clustering of both the <span class="html-italic">Pyrenophora teres</span> f. <span class="html-italic">teres</span> isolates and barley differentials using the infection response scores (color scale). Hierarchical clustering was performed with the WardD2 method and unsquared Euclidean distances. The isolate groups (a, b, c, and d) are marked at the corresponding nodes. See <a href="#jof-10-00184-f002" class="html-fig">Figure 2</a> for the full names of the barley lines.</p>
Full article ">
19 pages, 1447 KiB  
Article
Effect of Genotype, Environment, and Their Interaction on the Antioxidant Properties of Durum Wheat: Impact of Nitrogen Fertilization and Sowing Time
by Stergios Melios, Elissavet Ninou, Maria Irakli, Nektaria Tsivelika, Iosif Sistanis, Fokion Papathanasiou, Spyros Didos, Kyriaki Zinoviadou, Haralabos Christos Karantonis, Anagnostis Argiriou and Ioannis Mylonas
Agriculture 2024, 14(2), 328; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14020328 - 19 Feb 2024
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1464
Abstract
In this study, the influence of genotype (G), environment (E), and their interaction (G × E) on the content of total free phenolic compounds (TPC) and the antioxidant capacity (AC) was investigated, using sixteen durum wheat genotypes cultivated under seven crop management systems [...] Read more.
In this study, the influence of genotype (G), environment (E), and their interaction (G × E) on the content of total free phenolic compounds (TPC) and the antioxidant capacity (AC) was investigated, using sixteen durum wheat genotypes cultivated under seven crop management systems in Mediterranean environments. Possible correlations between TPC and AC with protein content (PC) and vitreous kernel percentage (VKP) were examined. Gs that exhibited stability across diverse conditions were studied through a comprehensive exploration of G × E interaction using a GGE biplot, Pi, and 𝘒R. The results indicated significant impacts of E, G, and G × E on both TPC and AC. Across E, the mean values of G for TPC, ABTS (2’-azino-bis-3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid), DPPH (2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl), and FRAP (ferric reducing antioxidant power) values were 48.8 mg Trolox equivalents (TE)/100 g, 121.3 mg TE/100 g, 23.0 mg TE/100 g, and 88.4 mg TE/100 g, respectively. E, subjected to splitting top-dressing N fertilization, consistently showed low values, while the late-sowing ones possessed high values. Organic crop management maintained a stable position in the middle across all measurements. The predominant influence was attributed to G × E, as indicated by the order G × E > E > G for ABTS, DPPH, and FRAP, while for TPC, it was E > G × E > G. For TPC, the superior Gs included G5, G7 and G10, for ABTS included G3, G5 and G7, and for protein included G1, G9, and G16. G7 and G5 had a high presence of frequency, with G7 being the closest genotype to the ideal for both TPC and ABTS. These results suggest that the sowing time, nitrogen fertilization, and application method significantly impact the various antioxidant properties of durum wheat. This study holds significant importance as it represents one of the few comprehensive explorations of the impact of various Es, Gs, and their interactions on the TPC and AC in durum wheat, with a special emphasis on crop management and superior Gs possessing stable and high TPC and AC among them, explored by GGE biplot, Pi and 𝘒R. Further experimentation, considering the effect of the cultivation year, is necessary, to establish more robust and stable conclusions. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Crop Production)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Genotype and genotype by environment (GGE) comparison biplot of sixteen genotypes evaluated in seven environments for TPC (<b>left</b>), ABTS (<b>center</b>), and protein (<b>right</b>).</p>
Full article ">
16 pages, 1631 KiB  
Article
Assessing the Impact of Genotype-by-Environment Interactions on Agronomic Traits in Elite Cowpea Lines across Agro-Ecologies in Nigeria
by Bosede Olufunke Popoola, Patrick Obia Ongom, Saba B. Mohammed, Abou Togola, Daniel Jockson Ishaya, Garba Bala, Christian Fatokun and Ousmane Boukar
Agronomy 2024, 14(2), 263; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14020263 - 25 Jan 2024
Viewed by 1764
Abstract
The yield of cowpea varieties is affected by environmental variability. Hence, candidate varieties must be tested for yield stability before release. This study assessed the impacts of genotypes, environments, and their interaction on the performance of elite cowpea lines for key adaptive, grain [...] Read more.
The yield of cowpea varieties is affected by environmental variability. Hence, candidate varieties must be tested for yield stability before release. This study assessed the impacts of genotypes, environments, and their interaction on the performance of elite cowpea lines for key adaptive, grain yield, and associated traits across different locations. A total of 42 elite genotypes were evaluated in five Nigerian environments, representing various savanna ecologies, during the 2021 growing season. The experimental design employed was an alpha lattice arrangement, with each genotype replicated three times. The results revealed significant differences among genotypes, environments, and genotype-by-environment interaction (G × E) for most traits, including days to maturity, 100-seed weight, and grain yield. The genotype and genotype-by-environment interaction (GGE) biplot showed G21 (IT14K-2111-2) and G25 (IT15K-2386-1) as the most stable genotypes across the five environments, G41 (IT11K-61-82) was best adapted to Ibadan and Shika, G5 (245-1) was best adapted to Bagauda and Gumel, and G30 (IT16K-2365-1) was best adapted to Bauchi. G21 (IT14K-2111-2) and G25 (IT15K-2386-1) could be recommended across the five test environments, whereas G41 (IT11K-61-82), G30 (IT16K-2365-1), and G5 (245-1) were specific to the adapted environments. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Genetics and Breeding of Field Crops in the 21st Century)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Agroecological zone and site locations on a map of Nigeria. Source [<a href="#B30-agronomy-14-00263" class="html-bibr">30</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>PCA showing clustering of genotypes and relationships among the test locations for yield using ViTSel 2020. Locations are shown with red vector arrows emerging from the center and pointing towards each location. The size of the angle between any two location vectors determines the strength of correlation between the locations—that is, locations with narrow angles are closely related and vice versa. The blue dot represents each genotype tested; the proximity of a genotype to a specific location indicates its good performance in that location: Bagauda—Kano state; Bauchi—Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University (ATBU), Gubi in Bauchi state; Ibadan—Oyo state; Shika—Kaduna state; Gumel—Jigawa state.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>GGE biplot—Which Won Where presenting the best genotypes in each environment. The green numbers are the codes for the genotypes tested; the blue text are the names of the locations: Bagauda—Kano state; Bauchi—Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University (ATBU), Gubi in Bauchi state; Ibadan—Oyo state; Shika—Kaduna state; Gumel—Jigawa state.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>GGE biplot presenting mean versus stability for grain yield data across five locations. The green numbers are the codes for the genotypes tested; the blue texts are the names of the locations: Bagauda—Kano state; Bauchi—Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University (ATBU), Gubi in Bauchi state; Ibadan—Oyo state; Shika—Kaduna state; Gumel—Jigawa state.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Relationship between phenology, yield components, and bacteria blight incidence for elite cowpea lines evaluated across five locations in Nigeria. BLIGHT—bacteria blight, DFDWTKGH—dried-fodder weight kg/ha, PL.C.PI—number of plants per hill, PLANT STAND—number of plant stands at harvest, MATT95—days to 95% maturity, SEEDKGHA—grain yield kg/ha, DAYSFL—days to first flowering, DAYSMAT—days to first pod maturity, FLW50F—days to 50% flowering, HSW—100-seed weight. The scale on the right side of the figure indicates the strength and direction of the correlation; deep blue—highly positively correlated and deep red—highly negatively correlated. The size of the circles also reflects the strength of the correlation.</p>
Full article ">
19 pages, 991 KiB  
Article
Assessment of Durum Wheat Cultivars’ Adaptability to Mediterranean Environments Using G × E Interaction Analysis
by Elissavet Ninou, Nektaria Tsivelika, Iosif Sistanis, Nikolaos Katsenios, Evangelos Korpetis, Eirini Vazaneli, Fokion Papathanasiou, Spiros Didos, Anagnostis Argiriou and Ioannis Mylonas
Agronomy 2024, 14(1), 102; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14010102 - 30 Dec 2023
Viewed by 1750
Abstract
Aside from plant breeding and agricultural inputs, understanding and interpreting the Genotype × Environment (G × E) interaction has contributed significantly to the increase in wheat yield. In Central Macedonia, Greece, fifteen commercially important durum wheat cultivars and one landrace were tested in [...] Read more.
Aside from plant breeding and agricultural inputs, understanding and interpreting the Genotype × Environment (G × E) interaction has contributed significantly to the increase in wheat yield. In Central Macedonia, Greece, fifteen commercially important durum wheat cultivars and one landrace were tested in six cultivation environments classified into high- and low- productivity environments. This study aimed to identify the most productive and stable durum wheat genotypes across Mediterranean farming systems through a comparative examination of genotype plus genotype by environment (GGE) biplot alongside fifteen parametric and non-parametric stability models. In the organic (low productivity) environment, cultivar Zoi and the landrace Lemnos showed remarkable results, indicating a potential solution for biological agriculture. For the late-sowing (low productivity) environment, some widespread varieties such as Mexicali-81, Meridiano, and Maestrale had excellent performance, showing potential to overcome more adverse conditions during critical grain filling periods such as higher air temperature and deficient soil moisture, i.e., conditions that correlate with climate change. Evaluation of genotypes in all environments for a combination of high yield and stable production, showed that the best genotypes were G8 (Simeto), G2 (Canavaro), and G12 (Elpida). In the subgroup with the three high-productivity environments, G12 (Elpida), G8 (Simeto), and G6 (Mexicali-81) were the best genotypes, followed by G2 (Canavaro), while in the low-productivity subgroup, the G2 (Canavaro), G13 (Zoi) and G8 (Simeto) genotypes were the best. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Genotype × Environment Interactions in Crop Production)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>AMMI biplot analysis (E = Environments, G = Genotypes) of E and G groupings.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Genotype and genotype by environment (GGE) biplot for grain yields of the sixteen genotypes evaluated in six environments (analysis of all environments). The “×” sign corresponds to genotypes, and the “+” sign corresponds to environments.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Genotype and genotype by environment (GGE) biplot for grain yields of the sixteen genotypes evaluated in three low-productivity environments. The “×” sign corresponds to genotypes, and the “+” sign corresponds to environments.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Genotype and genotype by environment (GGE) biplot for grain yields of the sixteen genotypes evaluated in three high-productivity environments. The “×” sign corresponds to genotypes, and the “+” sign corresponds to environments.</p>
Full article ">
17 pages, 3292 KiB  
Article
Exploring Genetics by Environment Interactions in Some Rice Genotypes across Varied Environmental Conditions
by Mohamed I. Ghazy, Mohamed Abdelrahman, Roshdy Y. El-Agoury, Tamer M. El-hefnawy, Sabry A. EL-Naem, Elhousini M. Daher and Medhat Rehan
Plants 2024, 13(1), 74; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13010074 - 26 Dec 2023
Cited by 4 | Viewed by 1355
Abstract
Rice production faces challenges related to diverse climate change processes. Heat stress combined with low humidity, water scarcity, and salinity are the foremost threats in its cultivation. The present investigation aimed at identifying the most resilient rice genotypes with yield stability to cope [...] Read more.
Rice production faces challenges related to diverse climate change processes. Heat stress combined with low humidity, water scarcity, and salinity are the foremost threats in its cultivation. The present investigation aimed at identifying the most resilient rice genotypes with yield stability to cope with the current waves of climate change. A total of 34 rice genotypes were exposed to multilocation trials. These locations had different environmental conditions, mainly normal, heat stress with low humidity, and salinity-affected soils. The genotypes were assessed for their yield stability under these conditions. The newly developed metan package of R-studio was employed to perform additive main effects and multiplicative interactions modelling and genotype-by-environment modelling. The results indicated that there were highly significant differences among the tested genotypes and environments. The main effects of the environments accounted for the largest portion of the total yield sum of squared deviations, while different sets of genotypes showed good performance in different environments. AMMI1 and GGE biplots confirmed that Giza179 was the highest-yielding genotype, whereas Giza178 was considered the most-adopted and highest-yielding genotype across environments. These findings were further confirmed by the which–won–where analysis, which explained that Giza178 has the greatest adaptability to the different climatic conditions under study. While Giza179 was the best under normal environments, N22 recorded the uppermost values under heat stress coupled with low humidity, and GZ1968-S-5-4 manifested superior performance regarding salinity-affected soils. Giza 177 was implicated regarding harsh environments. The mean vs. stability-based rankings indicated that the highest-ranked genotypes were Giza179 > Giza178 > IET1444 > IR65600-77 > GZ1968-S-5-4 > N22 > IR11L236 > IR12G3213. Among them, Giza178, IR65600-77, and IR12G3213 were the most stable genotypes. Furthermore, these results were confirmed by cluster-analysis-based stability indices. A significant and positive correlation was detected between the overall yield under all the environments with panicle length, number of panicles per plant, and thousand grain weight. Our study sheds light on the notion that the Indica/Japonica and Indica types have greater stability potential over the Japonica ones, as well as the potential utilization of genotypes with wide adaptability, stability, and high yield, such as Giza178, in the breeding programs for climate change resilience in rice. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Abiotic Stress of Crops: Molecular Genetics and Genomics)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Genotypic performance across the different locations. (<b>A</b>) Genotypes’ grain yield means across the 8 different environments. (<b>B</b>) Box plot of grain yield for the 8 different environments explaining the differences among the 4 locations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>(<b>A</b>) The “AMMI1” biplot displays the main effect (GY) and IPC1 effect values explaining the relationship among tested genotypes and environments. (<b>B</b>) The “AMMI2” biplot displays the main axes of G+GEI effect (IPCA1 and IPCA2) values for the tested genotypes and environments. The tested genotypes are 34 (G1:G34 in blue color) grown in four locations in the two consecutive years, 2021 and 2022 (E1 and E2 = Sakha; E3 and E4 = Alexandria; E5 and E6 = Gemmiza; E7 and E8 = Kharga oasis).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>(<b>A</b>) The “which–won–where” polygon biplot displays the winning genotypes at each environment. (<b>B</b>) The “GY vs. WAAS” biplot displays the most-adopted genotypes across the tested environments. The tested genotypes are 34 (G1:G34 in blue color) grown in four locations in the two consecutive years, 2021 and 2022 (E1 and E2 = Sakha; E3 and E4 = Alexandria; E5, and E6 = Gemmiza; E7 and E8 = Kharga oasis).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>(<b>A</b>) The “mean versus stability” model describing the interaction effect of the tested rice genotypes evaluated across eight environments. (<b>B</b>) The “ranking genotypes” model of biplot to assess the ideal genotype. The tested genotypes are 34 (G1:G34 in blue color) grown in four locations in the two consecutive years, 2021 and 2022 (E1 and E2 = Sakha; E3 and E4 = Alexandria; E5 and E6 = Gemmiza; E7 and E8 = Kharga oasis).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Hierarchical dendrogram classifying the 34 rice genotypes based on their ranks for GY and stability statistics conducted via Ward’s method.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Spearman correlation coefficients for the yield, and other studied yield-related traits. Scatterplots of each trait’s pair of numeric variables are situated in the left part of the figure. Variable distribution is drawn on the diagonal. YLD: yield; PL: panicle length (cm); NPP: number of panicles per plant; TG: thousand grain weight (g); and ST: sterility (%). These traits were recorded for the tested genotypes grown in the four locations for the two consecutive years, 2021 and 2022 (E1 and E2 = Sakha; E3 and E4 = Alexandria; E5 and E6 = Gemmiza; E7 and E8 = Kharga oasis). * <span class="html-italic">p</span> ≤ 0.05, ** <span class="html-italic">p</span> ≤ 0.01, *** <span class="html-italic">p</span> ≤ 0.001.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>The monthly average maximum and minimum temperature (°C) at four locations during 2021 (<b>A</b>) and 2022 (<b>B</b>) rice seasons.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>The monthly average of relative humidity (%) at the four locations during 2021 (<b>A</b>) and 2022 (<b>B</b>) rice seasons.</p>
Full article ">
Back to TopTop