Theoretical and Applied Genetics

, Volume 93, Issue 3, pp 468–476 | Cite as

Regression analysis of yield stability is strongly affected by companion test varieties and locations — examples from a study of Nordic barley lines

  • M. Nurminiemi
  • O. A. Rognli
Article

Abstract

The suitability of regression analysis for studying the phenotypic stability of grain yield was investigated using a collection of 220 Nordic barley lines. Linear regression explained 26–52% of the genotype x environment (GE) interactions in different groupings of the material. The regression coefficient, b i , measures the yield response of the i-th genotype to improved environmental conditions. Deviations from regression, S di 2 , have been used to estimate Tai's stability parameter, λ i , which is a measure of the phenotypic yield stability in the agronomic sense. Repeatability of b i , λ i , and grain yield was studied by means of correlations between estimates obtained in each experimental year. Yield had the highest repeatability, with correlations between years ranging from 0.57 to 0.85. In this study, regression coefficients and λ i -values were not repeatable, i.e. genotypes reacted differentially to the yearly climatic variations. Six-rowed (6r) barleys had higher responsiveness, but lower mean yields, than two-rowed (2r) barleys. This is partly due to the history of selection of 6r-barleys, which mainly originate from regions with low potential yield levels, i.e. Finland and Norway. In general, responsiveness and stability were not correlated with yield. The highest-yielding lines had b i ≈1. The response pattern of the different types of barleys used in this study show that responsiveness can be changed by recombination.

Key words

Adaptation Barley Genotype x environment interaction Regression analysis Repeatability 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aastveit AH (1977) Statistical analyses of field trials with a large number of entries. Thesis, Mathematical Statistics, University of Oslo (in Norwegian)Google Scholar
  2. Allard RW, Bradshaw AD (1964) Implications of genotype-environmental interactions in applied plant breeding. Crop Sci 4:503–508Google Scholar
  3. Allen FL, Comstock RE, Rasmusson DC (1978) Optimal environments for yield testing. Crop Sci 18:747–751Google Scholar
  4. Austin RB (1988) A different ideotype for each environment? In Jorna ML, Slootmaker LAJ (eds) Cereal breeding related to integrated cereal production. EUCARPIA Proc Conf Cereal Section, Pudoc, Wageningen, pp 47–60Google Scholar
  5. Becker HC (1981) Biometrical and empirical relations between different concepts of phenotypic stability. In: Gallais A (ed) Quantitative genetics and breeding methods. EUCARPIA Proc 4th Meet Section Biometrics Plant Breeding, 2–4 September 1981, Poitiers, France. INRA, Versailles, pp 307–314Google Scholar
  6. Becker HC (1983) Züchterische Möglichkeiten zur Verbesserung der Ertragssicherheit. Vortr Pflanzenzüchtg 3:203–225Google Scholar
  7. Becker HC (1984) Analysis of genotype x environment interactions with partitioning of environmental effects into effects of locations and years. Vortr Pflanzenzüchtg 7:209–218Google Scholar
  8. Becker HC, Léon J (1988) Stability analysis in plant breeding. Plant Breed 101:1–23Google Scholar
  9. Ceccarelli S, Grando S (1991) Selection environment and environmental sensitivity in barley. Euphytica 57:157–167Google Scholar
  10. Eberhart SA, Russell WA (1966) Stability parameters for comparing varieties. Crop Sci 6:36–40Google Scholar
  11. Finlay KW, Wilkinson GN (1963) The analysis of adaptation in a plant-breeding programme. Aust J Agric Res 14:742–754Google Scholar
  12. Jalaluddin Md, Harrison SA (1993) Repeatability of stability estimators for grain yield in wheat. Crop Sci 33:720–724Google Scholar
  13. Knight R (1970) The measurement and interpretation of genotypeenvironment interactions. Euphytica 19:225–235Google Scholar
  14. Langer I, Frey KJ, Bailey T (1979) Associations among productivity, production response, and stability indexes in oat varieties. Euphytica 28:17–24Google Scholar
  15. Léon J, Becker HC (1988) Repeatability of some statistical measures of phenotypic stability — correlations between single-year results and multi-year results. Plant Breed 100:137–142Google Scholar
  16. Lin CS, Binns MR (1988) A method of analyzing cultivar x location x year experiments: a new stability parameter. Theor Appl Genet 76:425–430Google Scholar
  17. Lin CS, Binns MR (1991) Assessment of a method of cultivar selection based on regional trial data. Theor Appl Genet 82:379–388Google Scholar
  18. Nilsen J (1983) Light climate in northern areas. In Kaurin Å, Junttila O, Nilsen J (eds) Plant production in the north. Norwegian University Press, pp 62–72Google Scholar
  19. Nissilä E (1992) Yield stability parameters of barley under Finnish conditions. Acta Agric Scand, Sect B, Soil and Plant Sci 42:152–157Google Scholar
  20. Nurminiemi M, Bjørnstad Å, Rognli OA (1996) Yield stability and adaptation of Nordic barleys. Euphytica (in press)Google Scholar
  21. Perkins JM, Jinks JL (1968a) Environmental and genotype-environmental components of variability.III. Multiple lines and crosses. Heredity 23:339–356Google Scholar
  22. Perkins JM, Jinks JL (1968b) Environmental and genotype-environmental components of variability. IV. Non-linear interactions for multiple inbred lines. Heredity 23:525–535Google Scholar
  23. Pfeiffer WH, Braun HJ (1989) Yield stability in bread wheat. In: Anderson JR, Hazell PBR (eds) Variability of grain yields. Implications for agricultural research and policy in developing countries. John Hopkins, University Press, Baltimore, pp 157–174Google Scholar
  24. Pham HN, Kang MS (1988) Interrelationships among and repeatability of several stability statistics estimated from international maize trials. Crop Sci 28:925–928Google Scholar
  25. Reysack JJ, Stuthman DD, Stucker RE (1993) Recurrent selection in oat: stability of yield and changes in unselected traits. Crop Sci 33:919–924Google Scholar
  26. Shabana R, Bailey T, Frey KJ (1980) Production traits of oats selected under low, medium, and high productivity. Crop Sci 20:739–744Google Scholar
  27. Simmonds NW (1991) Selection for local adaptation in a plant breeding programme. Theor Appl Genet 82:363–367Google Scholar
  28. Skrøppa T (1984) A critical evaluation of methods available to estimate the genotype x environment interaction. Studia For Suec 166:3–14Google Scholar
  29. SNP (1986) Samordnad odlingsvärdesprovning i Norden. SNP publikation nr. 14. Nordisk Ministerråd, Oslo, Norway SNP (1992) Agroklimatisk kartlegging av Norden. Samnordisk planteforedling. Skrifter och rapporter nr 5. BTJ Tryck AB, Lund, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  30. Tai GCC (1971) Genotypic stability analysis and its application to potato regional trials. Crop Sci 11:184–190Google Scholar
  31. Wiberg A (1993) Norrländskt jordbruk — finns det behov av speciell sortframställning? Sveriges Utsädesf Tidskr 103:17–24Google Scholar
  32. Yates F, Cochran, WG (1938) The analysis of groups of experiments. J Agric Sci 28:556–580Google Scholar
  33. Yue G, Perng SK, Walter TL, Wassom CE, Liang GH (1990) Stability analysis of yield in maize, wheat and sorghum and its implications in breeding programs. Plant Breed 104:72–80Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Nurminiemi
    • 1
  • O. A. Rognli
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biotechnological SciencesAgricultural University of NorwayÅsNorway

Personalised recommendations