Euphytica

, Volume 157, Issue 1–2, pp 239–251 | Cite as

Interpreting genotype × environment interactions for durum wheat grain yields using nonparametric methods

  • Reza Mohammadi
  • Abdolvahab Abdulahi
  • Reza Haghparast
  • Mohammad Armion
Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare nonparametric stability procedures and apply different nonparametric tests for genotype ×  environment (G ×  E) interactions on grain yields of 15 durum wheat genotypes selected from Iran/ICARDA joint project grown in 12 environments during 2004–2006 in Iran. Results of nonparametric tests of G ×  E interaction and a combined ANOVA across environments indicated the presence of both crossover and noncrossover interactions, and genotypes varied significantly for grain yield. In this study, high values of TOP (proportion of environments in which a genotype ranked in the top third) and low values of sum of ranks of mean grain yield and Shukla’s stability variance (rank-sum) were associated with high mean yield. The other nonparametric stability methods were not positively correlated with mean yield but they characterized a static concept of stability. The results of correlation analysis indicated that only TOP and rank-sum methods would be useful for simultaneous selection for high yield and stability. These two methods identified lines Mrb3/Mna-1, Syrian-4 and Mna-1/Rfm-7 as genotypes with dynamic stability and wide adaptation. According to static stability parameters, the genotypes 12A-Mar8081 and 19A-Mar8081 with lowest grain yield were selected as genotypes with the highest stability.

Keywords

Durum wheat Nonparametric methods Dynamic and static stability Crossover interaction 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. A. Beg and Dr. N. Sabaghnia for their helpful comments and providing the SAS program used for this study. We are also grateful to respected reviewers for their valuable comments and discussions on the manuscript. Also, financial support from the Agricultural Research and Education Organization (AREO) of Iran is thankfully acknowledged.

References

  1. Annicchiarico P (1997) Additive main effects and multiplicative interaction (AMMI) analysis of genotype location interaction in variety trials repeated over years. Theor Appl Genet 94:1072–1077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker RJ (1988) Test for Crossover genotype-environmental interactions. Can J Plant Sci 64:405–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker RJ (1990) Crossover genotype–environmental interaction in spring wheat. In: Kang MS (ed) Genotype-by-environment interaction and plant breeding. Department Of Agronomy, Louisiana Agric Exp Stn, Baton Rouge, LA, USA, pp 42–51Google Scholar
  4. Baker RJ (1991) Evaluation of a test for crossover interaction. In: Pesek J, Herman M, Hartman J (eds) Biometrics in plant breeding: proceedings of 8th Meeting of EUCARPIA Section ‘Biometrics in plant breeding’. Research Institute of Agroecology and Soil Management, Hrusovany, Czechoslovakia, pp 329–338Google Scholar
  5. Becker HC (1981) Correlations among some statistical measures of phenotypic stability. Euphytica 30:835–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Becker HC, Leon J (1988) Stability analysis in plant breeding. Plant Breed 101:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bortz J, Lienert, GA, Boehnke K (1990) Verteilungsfreie Methoden in der Biostatistik. Springer Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  8. Bredenkamp J (1974) Nonparametric prufung von wechsewirkungen. Psychol Beitr 16:398–416Google Scholar
  9. Crossa J (1990) Statistical analyses of multilocation trials. Adv Agron 44:55–85Google Scholar
  10. De Kroon J, van der Laan P (1981) Distribution-free test procedures in two-way layouts: a concept of rank-interaction. Stat Neeri 35:189–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eberhart SA, Russell WA (1966) Stability parameters for comparing varieties. Crop Sci 6:36–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Erdfelder E, Bredenkamp J (1984) Kritik mehrfaktorieller Rang varianzabalysen. Psycho Beitr 26:263–282Google Scholar
  13. Flores F, Moreno MT, Cubero JI (1998) A comparison of univariate and multivariate methods to analyze environments. Field Crops Res 56:271–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fox PN, Skovmand B, Thompson BK, Braun HJ, Cormier R (1990) Yield and adaptation of hexaploid spring triticale. Euphytica 47:57–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hildebrand H (1980) Asymptotosch verteilungsfreie rangtests in linearen modellen. Med Inform Stak 17:344–349Google Scholar
  16. Huehn VM (1979) Beitrage zur erfassung der phanotypischen stabilitat. EDV Med Biol 10:112–117Google Scholar
  17. Huehn M (1990) Non-parametric measures of phenotypic stability: part 1. Theory, Euphytica 47:189–194Google Scholar
  18. Huehn M (1996) Non-parametric analysis of genotype ×  environment interactions by ranks. In: Kang MS, Gauch HG (eds) Genotype by environment interaction. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA, pp 213–228Google Scholar
  19. Huehn M, Leon J (1995) Non-parametric analysis of cultivar performance trials: experimental results and comparison of different procedures based on ranks. Agron J 87:627–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Huehn M, Nassar R (1989) On tests of significance for non-parametric measures of phenotypic stability. Biometrics 45:997–1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kang MS (1988) A rank-sum method for selecting high yielding stable corn genotypes. Cereal Res Comm 16:113–115Google Scholar
  22. Kang MS, Gauch HG Jr (eds) (1996) Genotype-by-environment interaction. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USAGoogle Scholar
  23. Kubinger KD (1986) A note on non-parametric tests for the interaction on two-way layouts. Biometrics J 28:67–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lin CS, Binns MR (1994) Concepts and methods for analyzing regional trial data for cultivar and location selection. Plant Breed Rev 12:271–297Google Scholar
  25. Lin CS, Binns MR, Lefkovitch LP (1986) Stability analysis: where do we stand? Crop Sci 26:894–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lienert GA (1973) Verteilungsfreie methods in der Biostatistik. vol 1. 2nd edn. Verlag A. Hain, Meisenheim am Glan, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  27. Nachit MM, Baum M, Poreciddu E, Monneveux P, Picard E (eds) (1998) SEWANA (South Europe, West Asia and North Africa) Durum Research Network. Proc SEWANA Durum Network Workshop, 20–23 March 1995. ICARDA, Aleppo, Syria.Google Scholar
  28. Nassar R, Huehn M (1987) Studies on estimation of phenotypic stability: tests of significance for non-parametric measures of phenotypic stability. Biometrics 43:45–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sabaghnia N, Dehghani H, Sabaghpour SH (2006) Nonparametric methods for interpreting genotype ×  environment interaction of Lentil genotypes. Crop Sci 46:1100–1106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Scapim CA, Oliveira VR, Braccinil AL, Cruz CD, Andrade CAB, Vidigal MCG (2000) Yield stability in maize (Zea mays L.) and correlations among the parameters of the Eberhart and Russell, Lin and Binns and Huehn models. Genet Mol Biol 23:387–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shukla GK (1972) Some aspects of partitioning genotype–environmental components of variability. Heredity 28:237–245Google Scholar
  32. Tai GCC (1971) Genotypic stability analysis and its application to potato regional trials. Crop Sci 11:184–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tavakoli AR, Oweis T, Ferri F, Haghighati A, Belson V, Pala M, Siadat H, Ketata H (2005) Supplemental irrigation in Iran: increasing and stabilizing wheat yield in rainfed highlands. On-Farm water husbandry research report No 5. ICARDA, Aleppo, SyriaGoogle Scholar
  34. Thennarasu K (1995) On certain non-parametric procedures for studying genotype–environment interactions and yield stability. PhD thesis. PJ School, IARI, New Delhi, India.Google Scholar
  35. Truberg B, Huehn M (2000) Contribution to the analysis of genotype by environment interactions: comparison of different parametric and non-parametric tests for interactions with emphasis on crossover interactions. Agronomy Crop Sci 185:267–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Westcott B (1986) Some methods, analyzing genotype–environment interaction. Heredity 56:243–253Google Scholar
  37. Yue GL, Roozeboom KL, Schapaugh WT, Liang GH (1997) Evaluation of soybean cultivars using parametric and non-parametric stability estimates. Plant Breed 116:271–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Reza Mohammadi
    • 1
  • Abdolvahab Abdulahi
    • 1
  • Reza Haghparast
    • 1
  • Mohammad Armion
    • 2
  1. 1.Dryland Agricultural Research InstituteKermanshahIran
  2. 2.Center of Agricultural Research and Natural ResourceIlamIran

Personalised recommendations