, Volume 94, Issue 1, pp 53–62 | Cite as

Joint regression vs AMMI analysis of genotype-environment interactions for cereals in Italy

  • P. Annicchiarico


Joint regression and Additive Main effects and Multiplicative Interaction (AMMI) models were compared for i) capacity of describing genotype-location (GL) and genotype-environment (GE) interaction effects (environments = location-season combinations), assessed in terms of estimated variance of heterogeneity of genotype regressions and of the sum of the variances of significant interaction principal component (PC) axes, and ii) repeatability between cropping seasons of measures of genotype stability across locations. These measures were Finlay and Wilkinson's regression coefficient for joint regression, and the Euclidean distance from the origin of significant interaction PC axes (D) and the absolute value of PC 1 score (| PC 1 |) for AMMI. Shukla's stability variance (σsup2;) was considered in addition. The study included three data sets for durum wheat, two for maize and one each for bread wheat and oat. Relationships between climatic variables and GL interaction occurrence were also assessed. AMMI proved distinctly more valuable in six data sets for description of GE effects and in four for description of GL effects over seasons. Its superiority was not crop-specific and tended to occur when more, distinct environmental constraints affected genotype responses. When both methods were appropriate, they provided a similar ordination of sites and genotypes for GL effects. The models that adequately described GL interaction over seasons generally provided also stability measures that were moderately repeatable between seasons. D was better repeatable than | PC 1 | and σ& 2; in a few cases. Ordination of locations on GL interaction PC 1 tended to be consistent both between wheat and between maize data sets having either no seasons or no genotypes in common.

adaptation AMMI cereals genotype-environment interaction joint regression stability 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Annicchiarico, P., 1992. Cultivar adaptation and recommendation from alfalfa trials in northern Italy. J Genet & Breed 46: 269–278.Google Scholar
  2. Annicchiarico, P. & M. Perenzin, 1994. Adaptation patterns and definition of macro-environments for selection and recommendation of common-wheat genotypes in Italy. Plant Breed 113: 197–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Annicchiarico, P. & G. Mariani, 1996. Prediction of adaptability and yield stability of durum wheat genotypes in normal and artificially drought stressed conditions. Field Crops Res 46: 71–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Annicchiarico, P., M. Bertolini & G. Mazzinelli, 1995. Analysis of genotype-environment interactions for maize hybrids in Italy. J Genet & Breed 49: 61–67.Google Scholar
  5. Argiller, O., Y. Hébert & Y. Barrière, 1994. Statistical analysis and interpretation of line × environment interaction for biomass yield in maize. Agronomie 14: 661–672.Google Scholar
  6. Becker, H.C., 1987. Zur Heritabilität statistischer Maßzahlen für die Ertragssicherheit. Vortr Pflanzenzüchtg 12: 134–144.Google Scholar
  7. Becker, H.C. & G. Léon, 1988. Stability analysis in plant breeding. Plant Breed 101: 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boggini, G., P. Annicchiarico, A. Longo & L. Pecetti, 1992. Produttività e adattamento di nuove costituzioni di frumento duro (Triticum durum Desf.). Riv di Agron 26: 482–488.Google Scholar
  9. Boggini, G., P. Annicchiarico, L. Cattivelli & M. Pezzali, 1995. Adattamento e raccomandazione di varietà di avena (Avena sativa L.) per le zone di coltura italiane. Riv di Agron 29: 141–146.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, D.M., 1969. Heat units for corn in southern Ontario. Ontario Dep Agric Food Factsheet, AGDEX 111/31: 1–4.Google Scholar
  11. Cooper, M. & I.H. DeLacy, 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: 561–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cornelius, P.L., 1993. Statistical tests and retention of terms in the Additive Main effects and Multiplicative Interaction model for cultivar trials. Crop Sci 33: 1186–1193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crossa, J., 1990. Statistical analyses of multilocation trials. Adv Agron 44: 55–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Falconer, D.S., 1989. Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. 3rd ed. Longman, Harlow, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  15. Fatunla, D. & K.J. Frey, 1976. Repeatability of regression indexes for grain yield of oats (Avena sativa L.). Euphytica 25: 21–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Finlay, K.W. & G.N. Wilkinson, 1963. The analysis of adaptation in a plant breeding programme. Aust J Agric Res 14: 742–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fox, P.N., B. Skovmand, B.K. Thomson, H.J. Braun & R. Cormier, 1990. Yield and adaptation of hexaploid spring triticale. Euphytica 47: 57–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gauch, H.G., 1992. Statistical analysis of regional yield trials: AMMI analysis of factorial designs. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  19. Gauch, H.G. & R.W. Zobel, 1996. AMMI analysis of yield trials. p. 85–122. In: M.S. Kang & H.G. Gauch (Eds). Genotype-by-Environment Interaction. CRC, Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar
  20. Gollob, H.F., 1968. A statistical model which combines features of factor analytic and analysis of variance techniques. Psychometrika 33: 73–115.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Helms, T.C., 1993. Selection for yield and stability among oat lines. Crop Sci 33: 423–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jalaluddin, Md. & S.A. Harrison, 1993. Repeatability of stability estimators for grain yield in wheat. Crop Sci 33: 720–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Léon, J. & H.C. Becker, 1988. Repeatability of some statistical measures of phenotypic stability — Correlation between single year results and multi years results. Plant Breed 100: 137–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nachit, M.M., G. Nachit, H. Ketata, H.G. Gauch & R.W. Zobel, 1992. Use of AMMI and linear regression models to analyze genotype-environment interaction in durum wheat. Theor Appl Genet 83: 597–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Patterson, H.D., V. Silvey, M. Talbot & S.T.C. Weatherup, 1977. Variability of yields of cereal varieties in UK trials. J Agric Sci, Camb 89: 239–245.Google Scholar
  26. Pecetti, L. & P. Annicchiarico, 1993. Grain yield and quality of durum wheat landraces in a dry Mediterranean region of northern Syria. Plant Breed 110: 243–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pham, H.N. & M.S. Kang, 1988. Interrelationships among and repeatability of several stability statistics estimated from international maize trials. Crop Sci 28: 925–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Piepho, H.P., 1995. Implication of correlations among some common stability statistics — a Monte Carlo simulation. Theor Appl Genet 90: 457–461.Google Scholar
  29. Romagosa, I. & P.N. Fox, 1993. Genotype × environment interaction and adaptation. p. 373–390. In: M.D. Hayward, N.O. Bosemark & I. Romagosa (Eds). Plant Breeding: Principles and Prospects. Chapman & Hall, London, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  30. Seif, E. & D.G. Pederson, 1978. Effect of rainfall on the grain yield of spring wheat, with an application to the analysis of adaptation. Aust J Agric Res 29: 1107–1115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shukla, G.K., 1972. Some statistical aspects of partitioning genotype-environmental components of vaxiability. Heredity 29: 237–245.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Steel, G.D.R. & J.H. Torrie, 1960. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.Google Scholar
  33. Yates, F. & W.G. Cochran, 1938. The analysis of groups of experiments. J Agric Sci, Camb 28: 556–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yau, S.K., 1995. Regression and AMMI analyses of genotype × environment interactions: an empirical comparison. Agron J 87: 121–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Weber, W.E. & G. Wricke, 1990. Genotype × environment interaction and its implication in plant breeding. p. 1–19. In: M.S. Kang (Ed.). Genotype-by-Environment Interaction and Plant Breeding. LSU, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.Google Scholar
  36. Weber, W.E. & T. Westermann, 1994. Prediction of yield of specific locations in German winter-wheat trials. Plant Breed 113: 99–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wricke, G., 1962. Uber eine Methode zur Erfassung der ökologischen Streubreite in Feldversuchen. Z Pflanzenzücht 47: 92–96.Google Scholar
  38. Zobel, R.W., J.W. Madison & H.C. Gauch, 1988. Statistical analysis of a yield trial. Agron J 80: 388–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Annicchiarico
    • 1
  1. 1.Istituto Sperimentale per le Colture ForaggereLodiItaly

Personalised recommendations