Comparison of parametric and non-parametric methods for selecting stable and adapted durum wheat genotypes in variable environments

Euphytica volume 159, pages419–432(2008)Cite this article

Abstract

Twenty parametric and non-parametric measures derived from grain yield of 15 advanced durum genotypes evaluated across 12 variable environments during the 2004–2006 growing seasons were used to assess performance stability and adaptability of the genotypes and to study interrelationship among these measures. The combined ANOVA and the non-parametric tests of Genotype × environment interaction indicated the presence of significant crossover and non-crossover interactions, and of significant differences among genotypes. Principal component analysis based on the rank correlation matrix indicated that most non-parametric measures were significantly inter-correlated with parametric measures and therefore can be used as alternatives. The results also revealed that stability measures can be classified into three groups based on static and dynamic concepts of stability. The group related to the dynamic concept and strongly correlated with mean grain yield of stability included the parameters of TOP (proportion of environments in which a genotype ranked in the top third), superiority index (P i) and geometric adaptability index. The second group reflecting the concept of static stability included, Wricke’s ecovalence, the variance in regression deviation (S 2 di), AMMI stability value, the Huehn’s parameters [S (1)i , S (2)i ], Tennarasua’s parameter [NP (1)i ], Kang’s parameter (RS) and yield reliability index (I i) which were not correlated with mean grain yield. The third group influenced simultaneously by grain yield and stability included the measures S (3)i , S (6)i , NP (2)i , NP (3)i , environmental variance (S 2 xi), coefficient of variability and coefficient of regression (b i). Based on the concept of dynamic stability, genotypes G6, G4, and G3 were found to be the most adapted to favorable environments, whereas genotypes G8, G9, and G12 were more stable and are related to the concept of static stability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig 1

References

  1. Allard RW, Bradshaw AD (1964) Implications of genotype environment interactions. Crop Sci 4:503–508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Annicchiarico P (2002) Defining adaptation strategies and yield stability targets in breeding programmes. In: Kang MS (ed) Quantitative genetics, genomics, and plant breeding. CABI, Wallingford, UK, pp. 365–383

    Google Scholar 

  3. Baker RJ (1988) Test for Crossover genotype-environmental interactions. Can J Plant Sci 64:405–410

    Google Scholar 

  4. Becker HC, Leon J (1988) Stability analysis in plant breeding. Plant Breed 101:1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bredenkamp J (1974) Nonparametric prufung von wechsewirkungen. Psychol Beitr 16:398–416

    Google Scholar 

  6. Calinski T (1960) On a certain statistical method of investigating interaction in serial experiments with plant varieties. Pol Acad Sci Bull (Cl II) 8:565–568

    Google Scholar 

  7. De Kroon J, van der Laan P (1981) Distribution-free test procedures in two-way layouts: a Concept of rank-interaction. Stat Neeri 35:189–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Eberhart SA, Russell WA (1966) Stability parameters for comparing varieties. Crop Sci 6:36–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Eskridge KM (1990) Selection of stable cultivars using a safety-first rule. Crop Sci 30:369–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fox PN, Skovmand B, Thompson BK, Braun HJ, Cormier R (1990) Yield and adaptation of hexaploid spring triticale. Euphytica 47:57–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Francis TR, Kannenberg LW (1978) Yield stability studied in short-season maize. I. A descriptive method for grouping genotypes. Can J Plant Sci 58:1029–1034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gauch HG (1992) Statistical analysis of regional yield trials: AMMI analysis of factorial designs. Elsevier, London

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gauch HG, Zobel RW (1996) AMMI analysis of yield trials. In: Kang MS, Gauch HG (eds) Genotype by environment ineraction. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL

    Google Scholar 

  14. Huehn M (1979) Beitrage zur erfassung der phanotypischen stabilitat. EDV Med. Biol 10:112–117

    Google Scholar 

  15. Huehn M (1990) Non-parametric measures of phenotypic stability: part 1. Theory, Euphytica 47:189–194

    Google Scholar 

  16. Huehn M (1996) Non-parametric analysis of genotype x environment interactions by ranks. In: Kang MS, Gauch HG (eds) Genotype by environment interaction. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 213–228

    Google Scholar 

  17. Huehn M, Leon J (1995) Non-parametric analysis of cultivar performance trials: experimental results and comparison of different procedures based on ranks. Agron J 87:627–632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kang MS (1988) A rank-sum method for selecting high yielding stable corn genotypes. Cereal Res Commun 16:113–115

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kang MS, Pham HN (1991) Simultaneous selection for high yielding and stable crop genotypes. Agron J 83:161–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kataoka S (1963) A stochastic programming model. Econometrika 31:181–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lin CS, Binns MR (1988) A method for analyzing cultivar x location x year experiments: a new stability parameter. Theor Appl Genet 76:425–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lin CS, Binns MR, Lefkovitch LP (1986) Stability analysis: where do we stand? Crop Sci 26:894–900

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lin CS, Butler G (1990) Cluster analyses for analyzing two-way classification data. Agron J 82:344–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. McKeand SE, Li B, Hatcher AV, Weir RJ (1990) Stability parameter estimates for stem volume for loblolly pine families growing in different regions in the southeastern United States. For Sci 26:10–17

    Google Scholar 

  25. Mohammadi R, Abdulahi A, Haghparast R, Armion M (2007) Interpreting genotype × environment interactions for durum wheat grain yields using non-parametric methods. Euphytica 157:239–251

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Nassar R, Huehn M (1987) Studies on estimation of phenotypic stability: tests of significance for non-parametric measures of phenotypic stability. Biometrics 43:45–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Purchase JL, Hatting H, Van Deventer CS (2000) Genotype x environment interaction of winter wheat in south Africa: II. Stability analysis of yield performance. S Afr J Plant Soil 17(3):101–107

    Google Scholar 

  28. Shukla GK (1972) Some aspects of partitioning genotype-environmental components of variability. Heredity 28:237–245

    Google Scholar 

  29. Simmonds NW (1991) Selection for local adaptation in a plant breeding programme. Theor Appl Genet 82:363–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Thennarasu K (1995) On certain non-parametric procedures for studying genotype-environment interactions and yield stability. Ph.D. thesis. PJ School, IARI, New Delhi, India

    Google Scholar 

  31. Wricke G (1962) Über eine Methode zur Erfassung der ökologischen Streubreite in Feldversuchen. Z. Pflanzenzüchtg 47:92–96

    Google Scholar 

  32. Yates F, Cochran WG (1938) The analysis of groups of experiments. J Agric Sci 28:556–580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Zobel BJ, Talbert J (1984) Applied forest tree improvement. Wiley, New York, p 505

    Google Scholar 

  34. Zobel RW, Wright MJ, Gauch HG (1988) Statistical analysis of a yield trial. Agron J 80:388–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

Financial support from the Agricultural Research and Education Organization (AREO) of Iran is highly acknowledged. We are also grateful to the reviewers for valuable comments and discussion relating to the manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Dryland Agricultural Research Institute (DARI), P.O. Box 67145-1164, Kermanshah, Iran

    Reza Mohammadi

  2. International Centre for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), P.O. Box 5466, Aleppo, Syria

    Ahmed Amri

Authors
  1. Reza Mohammadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ahmed Amri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Reza Mohammadi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mohammadi, R., Amri, A. Comparison of parametric and non-parametric methods for selecting stable and adapted durum wheat genotypes in variable environments. Euphytica 159, 419–432 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-007-9600-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Durum wheat
  • GE interaction
  • Parametric and non-parametric measures
  • Dynamic and static stability
  • Adaptability