Theoretical and Applied Genetics

, Volume 88, Issue 6–7, pp 707–716 | Cite as

Retrospective analysis of the relationships among the test environments of the Southern Queensland sugarcane breeding programme

  • P. D. N. Mirzawan
  • M. Cooper
  • I. H. DeLacy
  • D. M. Hogarth


Repeatability of aspects of genotype by environment (GxE) interactions is an important factor to be assessed in designing more efficient selection programmes. Sugar yield data from multi environment trials (METs) which were part of the sugarcane breeding programme in southern Queensland were analysed. Data were obtained from 71 environments consisting of trials planted from 1986 to 1989. Retrospective analysis on these data was conducted to assess the repeatability of the clone by environment (CxE) interactions over locations and years. This analysis focussed on identifying similarities among test environments in the way they discriminated among clones for sugar yield. Analyses of variance and pattern analyses on environments over years based on standardised data were conducted. The pattern analyses were done sequentially according to the accumulated data sets over years. Squared Euclidean distances among environments were averaged over data sets and years before pattern analyses across the data sets were conducted. A graphical methodology was developed to present the results of the cumulative historical analysis. CxE interactions of a magnitude which affected selection decisions were present in each data set studied. Pattern analyses on cumulative data sets identified environmental groupings that were based on geographical positions. Each location generated a different pattern of discrimination among the clones. These results emphasised the importance of clone by location (CxL) interactions in southern Queensland and the need to concentrate more on testing across locations than on ratooning ability within a location. The classifications identified similarities among ratoon crops within a location, differences among locations and differences between ratoon crops and their plant crop (PC). This suggested that some aspects of CxL and clone by crop-year (CxY) interactions were repeatable across years. The potential applications of these results to increase efficiency of the sugarcane breeding programme, such as the possibility of applying indirect selection among environments generating similar discrimination among clones, are discussed.

Key words

GxE interactions Retrospective analysisPattern analysis Multi environment trials Sugarcane 



Genotype-by-environment interactions


multi-environment trials


clone-by-en-vironment interactions


clone-by-location interactions


plant crop


clone-by-crop-year interactions


clone-by-location-by-crop-year interactions


substation yield trials


Bureau of SugarExperiment Stations


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allard RW, Bradshaw AD (1964) Implications of genotype-environmental interactions in applied plant breeding. Crop Sci 4:503–508Google Scholar
  2. Baker RJ (1988) Differential response to environmental stress. In: Weir BS, Eisen EJ, Goodman MM, Namkoong G (eds) Proc 2nd Int Conf Quant Genet. Sinauer Assoc, New York, pp 492–504Google Scholar
  3. Baker RJ (1990) Crossover genotype-environmental interaction in spring wheat. In: Kang MS (ed) Genotype-by-environment interaction and plant breeding. Louisiana State University, mBaton Rouge, La., pp 42–51Google Scholar
  4. Brennan PS, Sheppard JA (1985) Retrospective assessment of environments in the determination of an objective strategy for the evaluation of the relative yield in wheat cultivars. Euphytica 34:397–408Google Scholar
  5. Brennan PS, Byth DE, Drake DW, DeLacy IH, Butler DG (1981) Determination of the location and number of test environments for a wheat cultivar evaluation program. Aust J Agric Res 32:189–201Google Scholar
  6. Bull JK, Hogarth DM, Basford KE (1992) Impact of genotypexenvironment interaction on response to selection in sugarcane. Aust J Exp Agric 32:731–737Google Scholar
  7. Burr EJ (1968) Cluster sorting with mixed character types I. Standardization of character values. Aust Computer J 1:97–99Google Scholar
  8. Burr EJ (1970) Cluster sorting with mixed character types II. Fusion strategies. Aust Computer J 2:98–103Google Scholar
  9. Cooper M, Woodruff DR, Eisemann RL (1990) New shots at evaluating genotypic adaptation — a case for taking better aim at environmental targets. In: O'Brien L, Ellison FW, Hare RA, Mackay MC (eds) Proc 6th Assembly Wheat Breed Soc Aust. Wheat Breeding Society of Australia Tamworth, NSW, Australia, pp 91–96Google Scholar
  10. Cooper M, DeLacy IH, Eisemann RL (1993a) Recent advances in the study of genotypexenvironment interactions and their application to plant breeding. In: Imrie BC, Hacker JB (eds) Focused plant improvement: towards responsible and sustainable agriculture. (Proc 10th Aust Plant Breed Conf.) Organising Committee Gold Coast, pp 116–131Google Scholar
  11. Cooper M, Byth DE, DeLacy IH, Woodruff DR (1993b) Predicting grain yield in Australian environments using data from CIMMYT international bread wheat performance trials: 2. The application of classification to identify environmental relationships which exploit correlated response to selection. Field Crops Res 32:323–342Google Scholar
  12. DeLacy IH, Lawrence P (1988) Combining pattern analyses over years — classification of locations. In: McWhirter KS, Downes RW, Read BJ (eds.) Proc 9th Aust Plant Breed Conf. Organising Committee, Wagga Wagga; NSW, Australia, pp 175–176Google Scholar
  13. DeLacy IH, Cooper M, Lawrence PK (1990) Pattern analysis over years of regional variety trials: relationship among sites. In: Kang MS (ed) Genotype-by-environment interaction and plant breeding. La. State University, Baton Rouge, La., pp 189–213Google Scholar
  14. Donald CM (1962) In search of yield. Aust J Agric Res 27:19–33Google Scholar
  15. Eisemann RL, Cooper M, Woodruff DR (1990) Beyond the analytical methodology — better interpretation and exploitation of genotype by environment interaction in breeding? In: Kang MS (ed) Genotype-by-environment interaction and plant breeding. La. State University, Baton Rouge, La., pp 108–117Google Scholar
  16. Fox PN, Rosielle AA (1982a) Reducing the influence of environmental main effects on pattern analysis of plant breeding environments. Euphytica 31:645–656Google Scholar
  17. Fox PN, Rosielle AA (1982b) Reference sets of genotypes and selection for yield in unpredictable environments. Crop Sci 22:1171–1175Google Scholar
  18. Gower JC (1966) Some distance properties of latent root and vector methods used in multivariate analysis. Biometrika 53:325–338Google Scholar
  19. Gower JC (1967) Multivariate analysis and multidimensional geometry. Statistician 17:13–28Google Scholar
  20. Haldane JBS (1947) The interaction of nature and nurture. Ann Eugenics 13:197–205Google Scholar
  21. Hamblin J, Fischer HM, Ridings HI (1980) The choice of locality for plant breeding when selecting for high yield and general adaptation. Euphytica 29:161–168Google Scholar
  22. Hinson K, Hanson D (1973) Competition studies in soybean. Crop Sci 2:117–123Google Scholar
  23. Hogarth DM, Bull JK (1990) The implications of genotype by environment interaction for evaluation of sugarcane families. I. Effect on selection. In: Kang MS (ed) Genotype-by-environment interaction and plant breeding. La. State University, Baton Rouge, La., pp 335–346Google Scholar
  24. Jackson PA (1992) Genotypexenvironment interactions in sugarcane II. Use of performance in plant cane as an indirect selection criterion for performance in ratoon crops. Aust J Agric Res 43:1461–1470Google Scholar
  25. Jackson PA, Hogarth DM (1992) Genotypexenvironment interactions in sugarcane I. Pattern of response across sites and cropyears in North Queensland. Aust J Agric Res 43:1447–1459Google Scholar
  26. Kang MS, Martin FA (1987) A review of important aspects of genotype-environmental interactions and practical suggestions for sugarcane breeders. J Am Soc Sugar Cane Technol 7:36–38Google Scholar
  27. Lawrence P, DeLacy IH (1988) Genotype — environment interactions for yield in cotton — contribution of environments to differential genotype response. In: Proc 9th Aust Plant Breed Conf Organising Committee, Wagga Wagga; NSW, Australia, pp 181–182Google Scholar
  28. Lin CS, Butler G (1988) A data-based approach for selecting locaions for regional trials. Can J Plant Sci 68:651–659Google Scholar
  29. Mirzawan PDN, Cooper M, Hogarth DM (1993a) The impact of genotype by environment interactions for sugar yield on the use of indirect selection in southern Queensland. Aust J Exp Agric 33:629–638Google Scholar
  30. Mirzawan PDN, Cooper gnM, Hogarth DM (1993b) The magnitude of genotype by environment interactions for cane yield, sugar yieldand CCS in southern Queensland and their impact on selection. In: eiImrie BC,Hacker JB (eds) Focused plant improvement: towards responsible and sustainable agriculture. (Proc 10th Aust Plant Breed Conf Organising Committee Gold Coast), pp 57–61Google Scholar
  31. Muchow RC, Hammer GL, Carberry PS (1991) Optimising crop and cultivar selection in response to climate risk. In: Muchow RC, Bellamy JA (eds) Climatic risk in crop production: models and management for the semiarid tropics and subtropics. CAB Int Wallingford, UK, pp 235–262Google Scholar
  32. Nix HA (1980) Strategies for crop research. Proc Agron Soc N Z 10:107–110Google Scholar
  33. Nyquist WE (1991) Estimation of heritability and prediction of selection response in plant populations. Crit Rev Plant Sci 10:235–322Google Scholar
  34. Patterson HD, Silvey V (1980) Statutory and recommended list trials of crop varieties in the United Kingdom. J R Stat Soc Ser A 143:219–252Google Scholar
  35. Patterson HD, Thompson R (1975) Maximum likelihood estimation of components of variance. In: Coroten LCH, Pastelnico P (eds) Proc 8th Int Biometric Conf., Editura Acad Rep Soc Romania, Bucharest, pp 197–207Google Scholar
  36. Peterson CJ (1992) Similarities among test sites based on cultivar performance in hard red winter wheat region. Crop Sci 32:907–912Google Scholar
  37. Peterson CJ, Pfeiffer WH (1989) International winter wheat evaluation: Relationship among test sites based on cultivar performance. Crop Sci 29:276–282Google Scholar
  38. Ward JH (1963) Hierarchical grouping to optimise an objective function. J Am Stat Assoc 58:236–244Google Scholar
  39. Wishart D (1969) An algorithm for hierarchical classifications. Biometrics 22:165–170Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. D. N. Mirzawan
    • 1
  • M. Cooper
    • 1
  • I. H. DeLacy
    • 1
  • D. M. Hogarth
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of AgricultureThe University of QueenslandAustralia
  2. 2.Bureau of Sugar Experiment StationsIndooroopillyAustralia

Personalised recommendations