Theoretical and Applied Genetics

, Volume 115, Issue 6, pp 819–835 | Cite as

Global adaptation patterns of Australian and CIMMYT spring bread wheat

  • Ky L. MathewsEmail author
  • Scott C. Chapman
  • Richard Trethowan
  • Wolfgang Pfeiffer
  • Maarten van Ginkel
  • Jose Crossa
  • Thomas Payne
  • Ian DeLacy
  • Paul N. Fox
  • Mark Cooper
Original Paper


The International Adaptation Trial (IAT) is a special purpose nursery designed to investigate the genotype-by-environment interactions and worldwide adaptation for grain yield of Australian and CIMMYT spring bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and durum wheat (T. turgidum L. var. durum). The IAT contains lines representing Australian and CIMMYT wheat breeding programs and was distributed to 91 countries between 2000 and 2004. Yield data of 41 reference lines from 106 trials were analysed. A multiplicative mixed model accounted for trial variance heterogeneity and inter-trial correlations characteristic of multi-environment trials. A factor analytic model explained 48% of the genetic variance for the reference lines. Pedigree information was then incorporated to partition the genetic line effects into additive and non-additive components. This model explained 67 and 56% of the additive by environment and non-additive by environment genetic variances, respectively. Australian and CIMMYT germplasm showed good adaptation to their respective target production environments. In general, Australian lines performed well in south and west Australia, South America, southern Africa, Iran and high latitude European and Canadian locations. CIMMYT lines performed well at CIMMYT’s key yield testing location in Mexico (CIANO), north-eastern Australia, the Indo-Gangetic plains, West Asia North Africa and locations in Europe and Canada. Maturity explained some of the global adaptation patterns. In general, southern Australian germplasm were later maturing than CIMMYT material. While CIANO continues to provide adapted lines to northern Australia, selecting for yield among later maturing CIMMYT material in CIANO may identify lines adapted to southern and western Australian environments.


Pedigree Information Maturity Class Australian Environment Spring Growth Habit Additive Relationship Matrix 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



We gratefully acknowledge Arthur Gilmour and Helena Oakey for their input in the implementation of the statistical models in ASReml and Sandra Micallef for providing COP information. We thank the many international collaborators who grew the IAT, especially the following Australian wheat breeders for their support (in alphabetical order): R. Eastwood, S. Jefferies, M. Lu, P. Martin, G. Rebetzke, A. Scott, J. Sheppard, R. Shorter, P. Wilson and R. Wilson. We also appreciate the Queensland Department of Primary Industries for the seed distribution of the IAT in Australia from 2001 to 2004 and financial support from the Australian Grains Research and Development Corporation (projects UQ123, CSP00068 and CSP00076).

Supplementary material


  1. Akaike H (1974) A new look at statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Autom Control AU 19:716–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell C, Eagles H (2003) Breeding wheat lines for southern Australia according to three climatic mega-environments. “Solutions for a better environment. In: Proceedings of the 11th Australian Agronomy Conference. Society of Agronomy, Geelong, VIC, AustralianGoogle Scholar
  3. Braun H-J, Rajaram S, van Ginkel M (1996) CIMMYT’s approach to breeding for wide adaptation. Euphytica 92:175–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brennan JP, Fox PN (1998) Impact of CIMMYT varieties on the genetic diversity of wheat in Australia, 1973–1993. Aust J Agric Res 49:175–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brennan JP, Quade KJ (2006) Evolving usage of materials from CIMMYT in developing Australian wheat varieties. Aust J Agric Res 57:947–952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burgueño J, Crossa J, Cornelius PL, Trethowan R, McLaren G, Krishnamachari A (2007) Modeling additive × environment and additive × additive × environment using genetic covariances of relatives of wheat genotypes. Crop Sci 47:311–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chapman SC, Mathews KL, Trethowan R, Singh RP (2007) Height and yield relationships between reduced height near-isogenic spring wheats across world wheat production regions. Euphytica. doi: 10.1007/s10681-006-9304-3
  8. Cooper M, DeLacy IH (1994) Relationships among analytical methods used to study genotypic variation and genotype-by-environment interaction in plant-breeding multi environment experiments. Theor Appl Genet 88:561–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cooper M, Fox PN (1996) Environmental characterization based on probe and reference genotypes. In: Cooper M, Hammer GL (eds) Plant adaptation and crop improvement. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp 529–547Google Scholar
  10. Cooper M, Woodruff DR (1993) Predicting grain–yield in Australian environments using data from CIMMYT international wheat performance trials. 3. Testing predicted correlated response to selection. Field Crop Res 35:191–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cooper M, Delacy IH, Byth DE, Woodruff DR (1993) Predicting grain-yield in Australian environments using data from CIMMYT international wheat performance trials. 2. The application of classification to identify environmental relationships which exploit correlated response to selection. Field Crops Res 32:323–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cooper M, DeLacy IH, Basford KE (1996) Relationships among analytical methods used to analyse genotypic adaptation in multi-environment trials. In: Cooper M, Hammer GL (eds) Plant adaptation and crop improvement. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 193–224Google Scholar
  13. Crossa J, Burgueño J, Cornelius PL, McLaren G, Trethowan R, Krishnamachari A (2006) Modeling genotype × environment interaction using additive genetic covariances of relatives for predicting breeding values of wheat genotypes. Crop Sci 46:1722–1733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crossa J, Cornelius PL (2002) Linear-bilinear models for the analysis of genotype-environment interaction. In: Kang MS (eds) Quantitative genetics, genomics and plant breeding. CAB International, New York, pp 305–322Google Scholar
  15. Cullis BR, Thomson FM, Fisher JA, Gilmour AR, Thompson R (1996) The analysis of the NSW wheat variety database. 2. Variance component estimation. Theor Appl Genet 92:28–39Google Scholar
  16. Cullis BR, Smith AB, Panozzo JF, Lim P (2003) Barley malting quality: are we selecting the best? Aust J Agric Res 54:1261–1275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cullis BR, Smith AB, Coombes NE (2006) On the design of early generation variety trials with correlated data. J Agric Biol Environ Stat 11:381–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. de la Vega AJ, Chapman SC (2006) Multivariate analyses to display interactions between environment and general or specific combining ability in hybrid crops. Crop Sci 46:957–967Google Scholar
  19. DeLacy IH, Basford KE, Cooper M, Bull JK, McLaren CG (1996) Analysis of multi-environment trials: an historical perspective. In: Cooper M, Hammer GL (eds) Plant adaptation and crop improvement. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp 39–124Google Scholar
  20. Doyle AD, McLeod RW, Wong PTW, Hetherington SE, Southwell RJ (1987) Evidence for the involvement of the root lesion nematode Pratylenchus thornei in wheat yield decline in northern New South Wales. Aust J Exp Agric 27:563–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eeuwijk FAv, Cooper M, DeLacy IH, Ceccarelli S, Grando S (2001) Some vocabulary and grammar for the analysis of multi-environment trials, as applied to the analysis of FPB and PPB trials. Euphytica 122:477–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Frensham AB, Barr AR, Cullis BR, Pelham SD (1998) A mixed model analysis of 10 years of oat evaluation data: use of agronomic information to explain genotype by environment interaction. Euphytica 99:43–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gilmour AR, Cullis BR, Verbyla AP (1997) Accounting for natural and extraneous variation in the analysis of field experiments. J Agric Biol Environ Stat 2:269–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gilmour AR, Gogel BJ, Cullis BR, Thompson R (2006) ASReml User Guide Release 2.0 VSN International Ltd, Hemel Hempstead, HP1 1ES, UKGoogle Scholar
  25. Henderson CR (1976) A simple method for computing the inverse of a numerator relationship matrix used in the prediction of breeding values. Biometrics 32:69–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lillemo M, van Ginkel M, Trethowan RM, Hernandez E, Rajaram S (2004) Associations among international CIMMYT bread wheat yield testing locations in high rainfall areas and their implications for wheat breeding. Crop Sci 44:1163–1169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mathews KL, Chapman SC, Trethowan R, Singh RP, Crossa J, Pfeiffer W, van Ginkel M, DeLacy I (2006) Global adaptation of spring bread and durum wheat lines near-isogenic for major reduced height genes. Crop Sci 46:603–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McLaren CG, Ramos L, Lopez C, Eusebio W (2004) Applications of the genealogy management system. ICIS Technical ManualGoogle Scholar
  29. Nicol JM, Ortiz-Monasterio I (2000) Cultivar susceptibility to the root-lesion nematode Pratylenchus thornei and wheat yield loss in the state of Sonora, Mexico, and wider implications. Annual Wheat Newsletter, CIMMYTGoogle Scholar
  30. O’Brien L, Morrell M, Wrigley C, Appels R (2001) Genetic pool of Australian wheats. In: Bonjean AP, William JA (eds) The world wheat book: a history of wheat breeding. Intercept Ltd., London, pp 611–648Google Scholar
  31. Oakey H, Verbyla A, Pitchford W, Cullis B, Kuchel H (2006) Joint modeling of additive and non-additive genetic line effects in single field trials. Theor Appl Genet 113:809–819PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Oakey H, Verbyla A, Cullis B, Wei X, Pitchford W (2007) Joint modelling of additive, dominance and epistatic (genetic line) effects in multi-environment trials. Theor Appl Genet 114:1319–1332PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ortiz R, Mowbray D (2007) Dedication: Norman E. Borlaug The humanitarian plant scientist who changed the world. Plant Breed Rev 28:1–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Parker GD, Fox PN, Langridge P, Chalmers K, Whan B, Ganter PF (2002) Genetic diversity within Australian wheat breeding programs based on molecular and pedigree data. Euphytica 124:293–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Peake A (2003) Inheritance of grain yield and effect of the 1BL/1RS translocation in three bi-parental wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) populations in production environments of north eastern Australia. School of Land and Food Sciences. The University of Queensland, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  36. Peterson CJ, Pfeiffer WH (1989) International winter wheat evaluation: relationships among test sites based on cultivar performance. Crop Sci 29:276–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Piepho H-P (1998) Empirical best linear unbiased prediction in cultivar trials using factor-analytic variance–covariance structures. Theor Appl Genet 97:195–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Piepho HP (1997) Analyzing genotype-environment data by mixed models with multiplicative terms. Biometrics 53:761–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Piepho HP, Möhring J, Melchinger AE, Büchse A (2007) BLUP for phenotypic selection in plant breeding and variety testing. Euphyica. doi: 10.1007/s10681-007-9449-8
  40. R Development Core Team (2007) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0.
  41. Rajaram S, Van Ginkel M (2001) Mexico, 50 years of international wheat breeding. In: Bonjean AP, William JA (eds) The world wheat book: a history of wheat breeding. Intercept Ltd, London, pp 579–608Google Scholar
  42. Rajaram SM, van Ginkel M, Fischer RA (1994) CIMMYT’s wheat breeding mega-environments (ME). In: Proceedings of the 8th International Wheat Genetics Symposium, Beijing, China, pp 1101–1106Google Scholar
  43. Riffkin PA, Evans PM, Chin JF, Kearney GA (2003) Early-maturing spring wheat outperforms late-maturing winter wheat in the high rainfall environment of south-western Victoria. Aust J Agric Res 54:193–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sadras V, Baldock J, Roget D, Rodriguez D (2003) Measuring and modelling yield and water budget components of wheat crops in coarse-textured soils with chemical constraints. Field Crops Res 84:241–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sivapalan S, O’Brien L, Ortiz-Ferrara G, Hollamby GJ, Barclay I, Martin PJ (2003) A comparative study for yield performance and adaptation of some Australian and CIMMYT/ICARDA wheat genotypes grown at selected locations in Australia and the WANA region. Aust J Agric Res 54:91–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Smith A, Cullis B, Gilmour A (2001a) The analysis of crop variety evaluation data in Australia. Aust N Z J Stat 43:129–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Smith A, Cullis B, Thompson R (2001b) Analyzing variety by environment data using multiplicative mixed models and adjustments for spatial field trend. Biometrics 57:1138–1147PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. St Martin SK (1982) Effective population–size for the soybean improvement program in maturity groups 00 to IV. Crop Sci 22:151–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stephens DJ, Lyons TJ (1998a) Rainfall-yield relationships across the Australian wheatbelt. Aust J Agric Res 49:211–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stephens DJ, Lyons TJ (1998b) Variability and trends in sowing dates across the Australian wheatbelt. Aust J Agric Res 49:1111–1118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Trethowan RM, Crossa J, van Ginkel M, Rajaram S (2001) Relationships among bread wheat international yield testing locations in dry areas. Crop Sci 41:1461–1469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Trethowan RM, Hodson D, Braun HJ, Pfeiffer WH (2005) Wheat breeding environments. In: J. Dubin MAL, Morris ML (ed) Impacts of International Wheat Breeding Research in the Developing World, 1988–2002. CIMMYT, Mexico, D.F., pp 4–11Google Scholar
  53. Yan W, Hunt LA (2002) Biplot analysis of diallel data. Crop Sci 42:21–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ky L. Mathews
    • 1
    • 5
    Email author
  • Scott C. Chapman
    • 2
  • Richard Trethowan
    • 3
    • 6
  • Wolfgang Pfeiffer
    • 3
    • 7
  • Maarten van Ginkel
    • 3
    • 8
  • Jose Crossa
    • 3
  • Thomas Payne
    • 3
  • Ian DeLacy
    • 1
  • Paul N. Fox
    • 4
  • Mark Cooper
    • 1
    • 9
  1. 1.The School of Land, Crop and Food SciencesThe University of QueenslandSt. LuciaAustralia
  2. 2.CSIRO Plant Industry, Queensland Biosciences PrecinctSt. LuciaAustralia
  3. 3.International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT)México D.FMexico
  4. 4.ACIARCanberraAustralia
  5. 5.CSIRO Plant Industry, Queensland Biosciences PrecinctSt. LuciaAustralia
  6. 6.Plant Breeding InstituteThe University of SydneyCamdenAustralia
  7. 7.HarvestPlusCaliColombia
  8. 8.Department of Primary IndustriesHorshamAustralia
  9. 9.Pioneer Hi-Bred International IncJohnstonUSA

Personalised recommendations