Evaluating Linear and Non-linear Genotype–Environment Interactions in Pearl Millet

  • E. A. Abdalla
  • D. S. VirkEmail author
  • F. A. Abera
Research Article


The nature of genotype–environment (GE) interactions was investigated for two F1 hybrids and eight open pollinated varieties (OPVs) of pearl millet for grain yield in 12 environments spread over 2 years (2010 and 2011) across the pearl millet growing belt of Sudan. The joint regression analysis showed significant linear and non-linear GE interactions corresponding to heterogeneity and remainder mean squares. However, the GE interactions of all genotypes except PGO9PM1 were explained by the linear regression model. Six OPVs and hybrid PGO9PM3 showed general adaptation with b ≈ 1.0 and non-significant remainder mean squares. Of these genotypes, while hybrid PMO9PM3 was the highest yielding (917 kg ha−1) farmers could adopt any genotype by trading off between their desirable traits such as mean grain yield, earliness, fodder yield and quality criteria etc. Two varieties (ISC-III and MCNELC), were specifically adapted to below average environments with their mean grain yields non-significantly different from the other six OPVs. The highest yielding hybrid PMO9PM1, on the other hand, showed specific adaptation to favourable environments but also had large remainder mean squares. More complex models such as quadratic, 2-intersecting-straight lines, 3-intersecting-straight lines were fitted which, however, could not account for the large remainder mean squares. A 3-lines model with quadratic component in the higher yielding segment of environments was found adequate showing that the upper threshold value for the hybrid was not reached and it would continue responding to higher yielding environments.


Pearl millet Genotype–environment interactions Non-linear interactions Quadratic regression Intersecting-lines regression 



The authors are thankful to the Agricultural Research Corporation for the overall support provided, and to the Practical Action, Sudan and the Arab Sudanese Seed Company for financial provisions. Thanks are also to Ahmed Abuhurra for his help in trials in North and South Kordofan States. The cooperation of all researchers and technical staff at Gezira, Gadarif, Alfashir and Niyala Research Stations during experimentation is highly appreciated.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    HCENR (2009) Sudan’s fourth national report to the convention on biological diversity. Government of the Republic of Sudan Ministry of Environment and Physical Development, The Higher Council for Environment and Natural Resources (HCENR), Khartoum, SudanGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yahaya Y, Echekwu CA, Mohammed SG (2006) Yield stability analysis of pearl millet hybrids in Nigeria. Afr J Biotechnol 5:249–253Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dakheel AJ, Shabbir G, Al-Gailani AQ (2009) Yield stability of pearl millet genotypes under irrigation with different salinity levels. Eur J Sci Res 37(2):288–301Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bashir EMA, Ali AM, Ali Adam M, Ismail MI, Parzies HK, Haussmann BIG (2014) Patterns of pearl millet genotype-by-environment interaction for yield performance and grain iron (Fe) and Zinc (Zn) concentrations in Sudan. Field Crops Res 166:82–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Virk DS, Virk PS, Mangat BK, Harinarayana G (1988) Linear and non-linear regression analysis of genotype × environment interactions in pearl millet. Theor Appl Genet 75:736–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Perkins JM, Jinks JL (1968) Environmental and genotype–environmental components of variability. III. Multiple lines and crosses. Heredity 23:339–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Perkins JM, Jinks JL (1973) The assessment and specificity of environmental and genotype–environmental components of variability. Heredity 30:111–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jinks JL, Pooni HS (1979) Non-linear genotype × environment interactions arising from thresholds. I. Parents, F1’s and selections. Heredity 43:57–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pooni HS, Jinks JL (1980) Non-linear genotype × environment interaction. II. Statistical models and genetical control. Heredity 45:389–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Verma MM, Chahal GS, Murty BR (1978) Limitations of conventional regression analysis—a proposed modification. Theor Appl Genet 53:89–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mariani BM, Manmana PN, Stefanini R (1983) Efficiency of linear and multi-phase regression methods to evaluate genotype–environment interaction for grain yield and protein content in Italian wheat varieties. Z Pflanzenzücht 90:56–67Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Virk DS, Virk PS, Harinarayana G, Arora BS, Kumar R (1986) Analysis of linear and non-linear genotype × environment interactions in pearl millet. SABRAO J 18:45–52Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ives AR, Carpenter SR (2007) Stability and diversity of ecosystems. Science 317:58–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Verma MM, Virk DS, Gill KS (1987) Genotype–environment interaction—its measurement and significance in plant breeding, 2nd edn. Communication Centre, Punjab Agricultural University, LudhianaGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Freeman GH, Perkins JM (1971) Environmental and genotype–environmental components of variability. VIII. Relation between genotypes grown in different environments and measure of these environments. Heredity 27:15–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Virk DS, Chahal SS, Pooni HS (1985) Repeatability of stability estimators for downy mildew incidence in peal millet. Theor Appl Genet 70:102–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The National Academy of Sciences, India 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Elobeid Research StationEl-ObeidSudan
  2. 2.School of Environment, Natural Resources and Geography (SENRGY)Bangor UniversityBangorWales, UK
  3. 3.Institute of Environment, Gender and Development Studies (IEGDS)Mekelle UniversityTigrayEthiopia

Personalised recommendations