Genotype × year interaction of pod and seed mass and stability of Pongamia pinnata families in a semi-arid region

  • G. R. Rao
  • B. SarkarEmail author
  • B. M. K. Raju
  • P. Sathi Reddy
  • A. V. M. Subba Rao
  • Jessie Rebecca
Original Paper


Sixteen pongamia families were evaluated in a field experiment for eight consecutive years in dryland conditions to identify stable, high-yielding families. The trial was conducted in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Each family, consisting of nine trees per replication, was planted at a spacing of 3 m × 3 m. Yield stability was analyzed using (1) Eberhart and Russel’s regression coefficient (βi) and deviation from regression (\(S_{\text{d}}^{2}\)), (2) Wrike’s ecovalence (\(W_{i}\)); (3) Shukla stability variance (\(\sigma_{i}^{2}\)); and (4) Piepho and Lotito’s stability index (\(L_{i}\)). Families were also analyzed for adaptability and stability using AMMI and GGE biplots graphical methods. The study revealed significant variances due to family and family × year interaction for pod and seed yield. Families performed differently and ranked differently across years. The performance of families was influenced by both genetic factor and environmental conditions in different years. Among families tested, TNMP20, Acc14, TNMP14 and Acc30 were high yielders for pods, and Acc14, Acc30, TNMP6, RAK19 and TNMP14 were high for seed yield. According to the Eberhart and Russell model, Acc30, TNMP14 and TNMP3 were stable across years. In the graphical view of family × year interaction based on AMMI methods, TNMP3, TNMP4 and TNMP14 had greater stability with moderate seed yield, and Acc14 and Acc30 had moderate stability with high seed yield. On the other hand, GGE biplots revealed Acc14, Acc30 and TNMP14 as high yielders with moderate stability. AMMI and GGE biplots were able to capture nonlinear parts of the family × year interaction that were not be captured by the Eberhart and Russel model while also identifying stable families. Based on different methodologies, Acc14, Acc30 and TNMP14 were identified as high yielding and stable families for promoting pongamia cultivation as a biofuel crop for semi-arid regions.


Biofuel Pongamia Genetic diversity Stability AMMI (additive main effects multiplicative interaction) GGE biplots Multi-year trial SVD (singular value decomposition) 



The authors thank Dr. R.C. Sharma, ICARDA, Tashkent Office for helping with the GGE biplot analysis.


  1. Ahlawat SP, Kumar RV, Ranjan R, Pandey SK, Joshi DC, Dhyani SK (2016) Morphological and molecular level of genetic diversity among Pongamia [Pongamia pinnata (L.) Pierre] accessions. Ind J Bio 15:85–94Google Scholar
  2. Allard RW, Bradshaw AD (1964) Implications of genotype-environmental interactions in applied plant breeding. Crop Sci 4:503–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen ON, Allen EK (1981) The leguminosae. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, p 812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Al-Ubaidi MO, Al-kaisy AM, Al-issawi MH, Fadhel F, Fuller M (2013) Performance assessment of wheat cultivars under three locations using GGE-biplot. J Gen Env Res Cons 1:262–270Google Scholar
  5. Arshadi A, Karami E, Sartip A, Zare M, Rezabakhsh P (2018) Genotypes performance in relation to drought tolerance in barley using multi-environment trials. Agr Res. Google Scholar
  6. Bala M, Nag TN, Kumar S, Vyas M, Kumar A, Bhogal NS (2010) Proximate composition and fatty acid profile of Pongamia pinnata, a potential biodiesel crop. J Am Oil Chem Soc. Google Scholar
  7. Baxevanos D, Goulas C, Tzortzios S, Mavromatis A (2008) Interrelationship among and repeatability of seven stability indices estimated from commercial cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) variety evaluation trials in three Mediterranean countries. Euphytica 161:371–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Changizi M, Choukan R, Heravan EM, Bihamta MR, Darvish R (2014) Evaluation of genotype environment interaction and stability of corn hybrids and relationship among univariate parametric methods. Can J Plant Sci 94:1255–1267. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cornelius J (1994) The effectiveness of plus-tree selection for yield. For Ecol Manag 67:23–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dehghani H, Sabaghpour SH, Sabaghnia N (2008) Genotype environment interaction for grain yield of some lentil genotypes and relationship among univariate stability statistics. Span J Agric Res 6:385–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dia M, Wehner TC, Arellano C (2016) Analysis of genotype × environment interaction (G × E) using SAS programming. Agron J 108:1838–1852. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Divakara BN, Das R (2011) Variability and divergence in Pongamia pinnata for further use in tree improvement. J of For Res 22(2):193–200. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ebdon JS, Gauch HG (2002) Additive main effect and multiplicative interaction analysis of national turfgrass performance trials: I. Interpretation of genotype × environment interaction. Crop Sci 42:489–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eberhart SA, Russel WA (1966) Stability parameters for comparing varieties. Crop Sci 6:36–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Elanchezhiyan M, Rajarajan S, Rajendran P, Subramanian S, Thyagarajan SP (1993) Antiviral properties of the seed extract of an Indian medicinal plant, Pongamia pinnata. Linn., against herpes simplex viruses: in vitro studies on Vero cells. J Med Microbiol 38:262–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fan XM, Kang MS, Chen H, Zhang Y, Tan J, Xu C (2007) Yield stability of maize hybrids evaluated in multi-environment trials in Yunnan, China. Agr J 99:220–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Farshadfar E, Mohammadi R, Aghaee M, Vaisi Z (2012) GGE biplot analysis of genotype × environment interaction in wheat-barley disomic addition lines. Aus J of Crop Sci 6:1074Google Scholar
  18. Fisher RA (1935) Design of experiments (8th ed., 1966). Hafner Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Gauch HG (1992) Statistical analysis of regional yield trials: AMMI analysis of factorial designs. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  20. Gauch HG (2006) Statistical analysis of yield trials by AMMI and GGE. Crop Sci 46:1488–1500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goel VL, Behl HM (2001) Genetic selection and improvement of hard wood tree species for fuelwood production on sodic soil with particular reference to Prosopis juliflora. Biomass Bioenerg 20:9–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hamayoon R, Khan H, Naz L, Munir I, Arif M, Khalil IA, Khan AZ (2011) Performance of chickpea genotypes under two different environmental conditions. Afr J of Biotechnol 10:1534Google Scholar
  23. Harrington KJ (1986) Chemical and physical properties of vegetable oil esters and their effect on diesel fuel performance. Biomass 9:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jaisankar I, Sankaran M, Singh DR, Damodaran V (2014) Genetic variability and divergence studies in pod and seed traits of Pongamia pinnata (L.) Pierre, accessions in Bay Islands. J For Res 25(2):351–358. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kang MS, Pham HN (1991) Simultaneous selection for high yielding and stable crop genotypes. Agron J 83:161–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kaushik N, Kumar S, Kumar K, Beniwal RS, Kaushik N, Roy S (2007) Genetic variability and association studies in pod and seed traits in Pongamia pinnata (L.) Pierre in Haryana India. Genet Resour Crop Evol 54:1827–1832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kesari V, Rangan L (2010) Development of Pongamia pinnata as an alternative biofuel. J Crop Sci and Biotech 13(3):127–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lin CS, Binns MR (1994) Concepts and methods for analyzing regional yield trial data for cultivar and location selection. Plant Breed Rev 12:271–297Google Scholar
  29. Mohammadi R, Amri A (2008) Comparison of parametric and non-parametric methods for selecting stable and adapted durum wheat genotypes in variable environments. Euphytica 159:419–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mohammadi R, Roostaei M, Ansari Y, Aghaee H, Amri A (2010) Relationships of phenotypic stability measures for genotypes of three cereal crops. Can J Plant Sci 90:819–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mukta N, Sreevalli Y (2010) Propagation techniques, evaluation and improvement of the biodiesel plant, Pongamia pinnata (L.) Pierre—a review. Ind Crops and Prod 31:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mukta N, Murthy IYLN, Sripal P (2009) Variability assessment in Pongamia pinnata (L.) Pierre germplasm for biodiesel traits. Ind Crop Prod 29:536–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Patil VK, Naik GR (2016) Variability in pod and seed traits of Pongamia pinnata Pierre ecotypes in North Karnataka, India. J For Res 27(3):557–567. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Piepho HP, Lotto S (1992) Rank correlation among parametric and nonparametric measures of phenotypic stability. Euphytica 64:221–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pourdad SS (2011) Repeatability and relationships among parametric and non-parametric yield stability measures in safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) genotypes. Crop Breed J 1:109–118Google Scholar
  36. Punitha R, Manoharan S (2006) Antihyperglycemic and antilipidper- oxidative effects of Pongamia pinnata (Linn.) Pierre flowers in alloxan induced diabetic rats. J Ethnopharmacol 105:39–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Raddad EY, Luukkanen O (2006) Adaptive genetic variation in water-use efficiency and gum yield in Acacia senegal provenances grown on clay soil in the Blue Nile region, Sudan. For Ecol Manag 226:219–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rakshit S, Ganapathy KN, Gomashe SS, Rathore A, Ghorade RB, Nagesh Kumar MV, Ganesmurthy K, Jain SK, Kamtar MY, Sachan JS, Ambekar SS, Ranwa BR, Kanawade DG, Balusamy M, Kadam D, Sarkar A, Tonapi VA, Patil JV (2012) GGE biplot analysis to evaluate genotype, environment and their interactions in sorghum multi-location data. Euphytica 185:465–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rameshthangam R, Ramasamy P (2007) Antiviral activity of bis (2-methylheptyl) phthalate isolated from Pongamia pinnata leaves against white spot syndrome virus of Penaeus monodon. Fabr Virus Res 126:38–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rao CR (1970) Estimation of heteroscedastic variances in linear models. J Am Stat Assoc 65:161–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sarkar B, Sharma RC, Verma RPS, Sarkar A, Sharma I (2014) Identifying superior feed barley genotypes using GGE biplot for diverse environments in India. Ind J Gen Pl Breed 74(1):26–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shukla GK (1972) Some aspects of partitioning genotype-environmental components of variability. J Hered 28:237–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wanyancha W, Mills R, Gwaze DP (1994) Genetic variation in Acacia albida (Faidherbia albida) and its agroforestry potential in Zimbabwe. For Ecol Manag 64:127–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wricke G (1962) On a method of understanding the biological diversity in field research. Z Pfl Zucht 47:92–146Google Scholar
  45. Yan W, Kang MS (2003) GGE biplot analysis: a graphical tool for breeders, geneticists, and agronomists. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  46. Yan W, Tinker NA (2006) Biplot analysis of multi-environment trial data: principles and applications. Can J Plant Sci 86:623–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yan W, Hunt LA, Sheng WQ, Szlavnics Z (2000) Cultivar evaluation and mega environment investigation based on the GGE biplot. Crop Sci 40:597–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zobel B, Talbert J (1984) Applied forest tree improvement. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. Zobel RW, Wright MJ, Gauch HG (1988) Statistical-analysis of a yield trial. Agron J 80:388–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Northeast Forestry University 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. R. Rao
    • 1
    • 2
  • B. Sarkar
    • 1
    Email author
  • B. M. K. Raju
    • 1
  • P. Sathi Reddy
    • 1
  • A. V. M. Subba Rao
    • 1
  • Jessie Rebecca
    • 1
  1. 1.ICAR-Central Research Institute for Dryland AgricultureHyderabadIndia
  2. 2.Tropical Forest Research Institute (TFRI), Indian Council of Forestry Research & Education, Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate ChangeJabalpurIndia

Personalised recommendations