Theoretical and Applied Genetics

, Volume 63, Issue 1, pp 17–22

Environmental response patterns in commercial classes of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)

  • A. Ghaderi
  • M. W. Adams
  • A. W. Saettler
Article

Summary

The yield data of 39 cultivars of diverse commercial classes of beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) planted in seven locations in Michigan were subjected to cluster and canonical variate analyses. The essential findings and conclusions can be summarized as follows: (1) Cluster analysis classified the cultivars into sub-sets or clusters almost identically coinciding with their commercial class designation. Canonical variate analysis completely confirmed the sub-groupings. Within class similarities were attributed to a narrow genetic base resulting from a common genetic relationship, or at least sharing of a common gene pool. (2) It was found that two clusters could possess almost identical mean (cluster mean) yields, and deviate in opposite directions over the same range of environments. (3) When total genotype × environmental interaction variance was partitioned into between and within clusters, the cluster × environment portion constituted 80% of the total. (4) These results imply that if the behavior of a given cultivar across a series of environments is known, the behavior of all other members of the class across a similar range of environments would be predictable.

Key words

Cluster analysis Canonical variate analysis Genotype × environment interaction 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature

  1. Abou-El-Fittouh, H.A.; Rawlings, J.O.; Miller, P.A. (1969): Classification of environments to control genotype by environment interactions with an application to cotton. Crop Sci. 9, 135–140Google Scholar
  2. Adams, M.W. (1977): An estimation of homogeneity in crop plants, with special reference to genetic vulnerability in the dry bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L. Euphytica 26, 665–679Google Scholar
  3. Avley, N.G.; Banfield, C.F.; Baxter, R.I.; Gower, J.C.; Krzanowski, W.J.; Lane, P.W.; Leech, P.K.; Nelder, J.A.; Payne, R.W.; Phelps, K.M.; Rogers, C.E.; Ross, G.V.S.; Simpson, H.R.; Todd, A.D.; Wedderburn, R.M.W.; Wilkinson, G.N. (1977): GENSTAT: A General Statistical Program. Rothamsted, England: Rothamsted Exper. Stn., Stat. Dep.Google Scholar
  4. Blackith, R.E.; Reyment, R.A. (1971): Multivariate Morphometrics. New York: Acad. PressGoogle Scholar
  5. Byth, D.E.; Eisemann, R.L.; DeLacy, I.H. (1976): Two-way pattern analysis of a large data set to evaluate genotypic adaptation. Heredity 37, 215–230Google Scholar
  6. Eberhart, S.A.; Russell, W.A. (1966): Stability parameters for comparing varieties. Crop Sci. 6, 36–40Google Scholar
  7. Finlay, K.W.; Wilkinson, G.N. (1963): The analysis of adaptation in a plant breeding programme. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 14, 742–754Google Scholar
  8. Freemann, G.H. (1973): Statistical methods for the analysis of genotype — environment interactions. Heredity 31, 339–354Google Scholar
  9. Ghaderi, A.; Everson, E.H.; Cress, C.E. (1980): Classification of environments and genotypes in wheat. Crop Sci. 20, 707–710Google Scholar
  10. Gollob, H.F. (1968): A statistical model which combines features of factor analytic and analysis of variance techniques. Psychometrica 33, 73–116Google Scholar
  11. Klecka, W.R. (1975): Discriminant analysis. In: SPSS, Statistical Package for Social Sciences (eds. Nie, N.H.; Hull, C.H.; Jenkins, J.; Steinbrenner, K.; Bent, D.H.), pp. 434–467. New York: McGraw HillGoogle Scholar
  12. Lin, Chuang Sheng; Thompson, B. (1975): An empirical method of grouping genotypes based on linear function of the genotype — environment interaction. Heredity 34, 255–263Google Scholar
  13. Mandel, J. (1961): Non-additivity in two-way analysis of variance. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 56, 878–888Google Scholar
  14. Mandel, J. (1972): Principal components, analysis of variance and data structure. Stat. Neerl. 26, 119–129Google Scholar
  15. Muntgomery, V.E.; Shorter, R.; Byth, D.E. (1974): Genotype × environment interactions and environmental adaptation. I. Pattern analysis-application to soybean populations. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 25, 59–72Google Scholar
  16. Shorter, R.; Byth, D.E.; Muntgomery, V.E. (1977): Genotype × environment interactions and environmental adaptation. II. Assessment of environmental contributions. Austr. J. Agric. Res. 28, 233–235Google Scholar
  17. Verma, M.M.; Chahal, G.S. (1978): Limitations of conventional regression analysis, a proposed modification. Theor. Appl. Genet. 53, 89–91Google Scholar
  18. Wishart, D. (1978): Clustan User Manual. Inter-University/ Research Council Series, Report No. 47. Edinburgh UniversityGoogle Scholar
  19. Yates, F.; Cochran, W.G. (1938): The analysis of groups of experiments. J. Agric. Sci. 28, 556–580Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Ghaderi
    • 1
    • 2
  • M. W. Adams
    • 1
    • 2
  • A. W. Saettler
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Crop and Soil SciencesUSA
  2. 2.US Department of AgricultureMichigan State UniversityE. LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations