Studying crossover genotype × environment interaction using linear-bilinear models and mixed models

Article

Abstract

In agriculture and plant breeding the most important genotype × environment interaction pattern is crossover genotype × environment interaction. Procedures using linearbilinear models are used to find disjoint subsets of sites or genotypes with negligible crossover genotype × environment interaction. In terms of correlations, these subsets of sites or genotypes should be such that pairs of sites have nearly perfect positive genetic correlations. Perfect positive genetic correlation between sites is a sufficient, but not a necessary, condition for a non-COI pattern. The main objective of this study was to use the mixed model theory to confirm that the subsets of sites and genotypes formed by using the linear-bilinear models have negligible crossover genotype × environment interaction. If there is no significant crossover interaction in a subset of sites or genotypes, then the mixed model should be able to confirm this by nonrejection of the hypothesis that the covariance structure has perfect genetic correlation. Mixed model analysis of results from two multisite cultivar trials confirmed the validity of the procedures using linear-bilinear model methods for clustering sites and genotypes into noncrossover genotype × environment interaction subsets.

Key Words

Biadditive models Genetic correlations Shifted multiplicative model Sites regression model Variance-covariance matrix 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abdalla, O. S., Crossa, J., and Cornelius, P. L. (1997), “Results and Biological Interpretation of Shifted Multiplicative Model Clustering of Durum Wheat Cultivars and Testing Sites,” Crop Science, 37, 88–97.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, R. J. (1990), “Crossover Genotype-Environmental Interaction in Spring Wheat,” in Genotype-By-Environment Interaction and Plant Breeding, ed. M.S. Kang, Baton Rouge, LA: Lousiana State University, pp. 42–51.Google Scholar
  3. Cornelius, P. L. (1993), “Statistical Tests and Retention of Terms in the Additive Main Effects and Multiplicative Interaction Model for Cultivar Trials,” Crop Science, 33, 1186–1193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cornelius, P. L., and Crossa, J. (1999), “Prediction Assessment of Shrinkage Estimators of Multiplicative Models for Multi-environment Cultivar Trials,” Crop Science, 39, 998–1009.Google Scholar
  5. Cornelius, P. L., Crossa, J., and Seyedsadr, M. S. (1996), “Statistical Tests and Estimators of Multiplicative Models for Genotype-by-Environment Interaction,” in Genotype-by-Environment Interaction, eds. M. S. Kang and H. G. Gauch, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 199–234.Google Scholar
  6. Cornelius, P. L., and Seyedsadr, M. S. (1997), “Estimation of General Linear-Bilinear Models for Two-Way Tables,” Journal of Statistical Computing and Simulation, 58, 287–322.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. Cornelius, P. L., Seyedsadr, M., and Crossa, J. (1992), “Using the Shifted Multiplicative Model to Search for ‘Separability’ in Crop Cultivar Trials,” Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 84, 161–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cornelius, P. L., Van Sanford, D. A., and Seyedsadr, M. S. (1993), “Clustering Cultivars into Groups Without Rank-Change Interactions,” Crop Science, 33, 1193–1200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crossa, J., and Cornelius, P. L. (1993), “Recent Developments in Multiplicative Models for Cultivar Trials,” in International Crop Science I, eds. D. R. Buxton, R. Shibles, R. A. Forsberg, B. L. Blad, K. H. Asay, G. M. Paulsen, and R. F. Wilson, Madison, WI: CSSA, pp. 571–577.Google Scholar
  10. — (1997), “Sites Regressión and Shifted Multiplicative Model Clustering of Cultivar Trials Sites Under Heterogeneity of Error Variances,” Crop Science, 37, 406–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crossa, J., Cornelius, P. L., Sayre, K., and Ortiz-Monasterio R., J.I. (1995), “AShifted MultiplicativeModel Fusion Method for Grouping Environments Without Cultivar Rank Change,” Crop Science, 35, 54–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crossa, J., Cornelius, P. L., and Seyedsadr, M. S. (1996), “Using the Shifted MultiplicativeModel Cluster Methods for Crossover Genotype-by-Environment Interaction,” in Genotype-by-Environment Interaction, eds. M.S. Kang and H.G. Gauch, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 175–198.Google Scholar
  13. Crossa, J., Cornelius, P. L., Seyedsadr, M., and Byrne, P. (1993), “A Shifted Multiplicative Model Cluster Analysis for Grouping EnvironmentsWithout Genotypic Rank Change,” Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 85, 577–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crossa, J., Cornelius, P. L., and Yan, W. (2002), “Biplots of Linear-Bilinear Models for Studying Crossover Genotype × Environment Interaction,” Crop Science, 42, 619–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Muir, W., Nyquist, W. E., and Xu, S. (1992), “Alternative Partitioning of the Genotype-by-Environment Interaction,” Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 84, 193–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Russell, W. K., Eskridge, K. M., Travnicek, D. A., and Guillen-Portal, F. R. (2003), “Clustering Environments to Minimize Change in Rank of Cultivars,” Crop Science, 43, 858–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. SAS Institute, Inc. (1999), SAS/STAT User’s Guide, Version 8, Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
  18. Seyedsadr, M., and Cornelius, P. L. (1992), “Shifted Multiplicative Models for Nonadditive Two-Way Tables,” Communications in Statistics B. Simulation and Computation, 21, 807–822.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. — (1993), “Hypothesis Testing for Components of the Shifted Multiplicative Model for a Nonadditive Two-Way Table,” Communications in Statistics B. Simulation and Computation, 22, 1065–1078.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Singh, M. Ceccarelli, S., and Grando, S. (1999), “Genotype × Environment Interaction of Crossover Type: Detecting its Presence and Estimating the Crossover Point,” Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 99, 988–995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Threthowan, R. M., Crossa, J., van Ginkel, M., Rajaram, S., and Hernandez, E. (2001), “Relationships Among Bread Wheat International Yield Testing Locations in Dry Areas,” Crop Science, 41, 1461–1469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Threthowan, R. M., van Ginkel, M. Ammar, K., Crossa, J., Payne, T. S., Cukadar, B., Rajaram, S., and Hernandez, E. (2003), “Associations Among Twenty Years of International Bread Wheat Yield Evaluation Environments,” Crop Science, 43, 1698–1711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Yang, R.-C. (2002), “Likelihood-Based Analysis of Genotype-Environment Interactions,” Crop Science, 42, 1434–1440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Yang, R.-C., and Baker, R. J. (1991), “Genotype-Environment Interactions in TwoWheat Crosses,” Crop Science, 31, 83–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Biometric Society 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • José Crossa
    • 1
  • Rong-Cai Yang
    • 2
    • 3
  • Paul L. Cornelius
    • 4
  1. 1.International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT)Mexico
  2. 2.Food and Rural DevelopmentEdmontonCanada
  3. 3.Food and Nutritional ScienceUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  4. 4.Department of Agronomy and Department of StatisticsUniversity of KentuckyLexington

Personalised recommendations