Evaluation of Genotype × Environment Interaction in Rice Based on AMMI Model in Iran

doi:10.1016/j.rsci.2017.02.001

Abstract

Abstract:

Identification of high-yielding stable promising rice lines and determination of suitable areas for rice lines would be done by additive main effects and multiplicative interaction (AMMI) model. Seven promising rice genotypes plus two check varieties Shiroudi and 843 were analyzed using a randomized complete block design with three replications in three consecutive years (2012, 2013 and 2014). Homogenous error variance was indicated in the nine environments for grain yield. The combined analysis of variance indicated significant effects of environment, genotype and genotype × environment (GE) interactions on grain yield. The significant effect of GE interaction reflected on the differential response of genotypes in various environments and demonstrated that GE interaction had remarkable effect on genotypic performance in different environments. The application of AMMI model for partitioning the GE interaction effects showed that only the first two terms of AMMI were significant based on Gollob’s F-test. The lowest AMMI-1 was observed for G7, G2 and G6. G7 and G6 had higher grain yield. According to the first eigenvalue, which benefits only the first interaction principal component scores, G1, G6, G2 and G9 were the most stable genotypes. The values of the sum of first two interaction principal component scores could be useful in identifying genotype stability, and G6, G5 and G2 were the most dynamic stable genotypes. AMMI stability value introduced G6 as the most stable one. According to AMMI biplot view, G6 was high yielding and highly stable genotype. In conclusion, this study revealed that GE interactions were an important source of rice yield variation, and its AMMI biplots were forceful for visualizing the response of genotypes to environments.

Key words: biplot, grain yield, GE interaction, multi-environment trial, stability

Sharifi Peyman, Aminpanah Hashem, Erfani Rahman, Mohaddesi Ali, Abbasian Abouzar. Evaluation of Genotype × Environment Interaction in Rice Based on AMMI Model in Iran[J]. Rice Science, 2017, 24(3): 173-180.

Figures/Tables 7

References 41

1	Adugna W, Labuschagne M T.2002. Genotype-environment interactions and phenotypic stability analyses of linseed in Ethiopia.Plant Breeding, 121(1): 66-71.
2	Akbarpour O, Dehghani H, Sorkhi B, Gauch H G.2014. Evaluation of genotype × environment interaction in barley (Hordeum Vulgare L.) based on AMMI model using developed SAS program. J Agric Sci Technol, 16: 909-920.
3	Akter A, Hasan M J, Kulsum M U, Rahman M H, Paul A K, Lipi L F, Akter S.2015. Genotype × environment interaction and yield stability analysis in hybrid rice (Oryza sativa L.) by AMMI biplot. Bangl Rice J, 19(2): 83-90.
4	Becker H C, Léon J.1988. Stability analysis in plant breeding.Plant Breeding, 101(1): 1-23.
5	Blanche S B, Utomo H S, Wenefrida I, Myers G O.2009. Genotype × environment interactions of hybrid and varietal rice cultivars for grain yield and milling quality.Crop Sci, 49(6): 2011-2018.
6	Bose L K, Jambhulkar N N, Pande K, Singh O N.2014a. Use of AMMI and other stability statistics in the simultaneous selection of rice genotypes for yield and stability under direct-seeded conditions.Chil J Agric Res, 74(1): 1-7.
7	Bose L K, Jambhulkar N N, Singh O N.2014b. Additive main effects and multiplicative interaction (AMMI) analysis of grain yield stability in early duration rice.J Anim Plant Sci, 24(6): 1885-1897.
8	Crossa J.1990. Statistical analysis of multilocation trials.Adv Agron, 44: 55-85.
9	Crossa J, Gauch H G, Zobel R W.1990. Additive main effects and multiplicative interactions analysis of two international maize cultivar trials.Crop Sci, 30(3): 493-500.
10	Dehghani H, Sabaghpour S H, Ebadi A.2010. Study of genotype × environment interaction for chickpea yield in Iran.Agron J, 102(1): 1-8.
11	Eberhart S A, Russell W A.1966. Stability parameters for comparing varieties.Crop Sci, 6(1): 36-40.
12	FAO 2016. Fao statistic. AO 2016. Fao statistic..
13	Finlay K W, Wilkinson G N.1963. The analysis of adaptation in a plant breeding programme.Aust J Agric Res, 14(6): 742-754.
14	Gabriel K R.1978. Analysis of meteorological data by means of canonical decomposition and biplots.J Appl Meteor, 11: 1072-1077.
15	Gauch H G.1992. Statistical Analysis of Regional Yield Trials: AMMI Analysis of Factorial Designs. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier.
16	Gauch H G, Zobel R W.1996. AMMI analyses of yield trials. In: Kang M S, Gauch H G. Genotype by Environment Interaction. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC: 85-122.
17	Gauch H G, Zobel R W.1997. Identifying mega-environments and targeting genotypes.Crop Sci, 37(2): 311-326.
18	Gollob H F.1968. A statistical model which combines features of factor analytic and analysis of variance techniques.Psychometrika, 33(1): 73-115.
19	Hill J.1975. Genotype × environment interactions: A challenge to plant breeding.J Agric Sci, 85(3): 477-493.
20	Karimizadeh R, Mohammadi M, Shefazadeh M K, Mahmoodi A A, Rostami B, Karimpour F.2012. Relationship among and repeatability of ten stability indices for grain yield of food lentil genotypes in Iran.Turk J Field Crop, 17(1): 51-61.
21	Katsura K, Tsujimoto Y, Oda M, Matsushima K, Inusah B, Dogbe W, Sakagami J I.2016. Genotype-by-environment interaction analysis of rice (Oryza spp.) yield in a floodplain ecosystem in West Africa. Eur J Agron, 73: 152-159.
22	Khatun H, Islam R, Anisuzzaman M, Ahmed H U, Haque M.2015. GGE bipot analysis of genotype × environment interaction in rice (Oryza sativa L.) genotypes in Bangladesh. Sci Agric, 12(1): 34-39.
23	Mostafavi K, Hosseini Imeni S S, Firoozi M.2014. Stability analysis of grain yield in lines and cultivars of rice (Oryza sativa L.) using AMMI (additive main effects and multiplicative interaction) method. Iran J Field Crop Sci, 45(3): 445-452. (in Persian with English abstract)
24	Nasiri M, Pirdashti H.2003. Effect of level and time of nitrogen on yield component of rice rationing.J Biol Sci, 2: 217-222.
25	Nath D, Dasgupta T.2013. Genotype × Environment interaction and stability analysis in Mungbean.J Agric Vet Sci, 5(1): 62-70.
26	Nayak D, Bose L K, Singh S, Nayak P.2008. Additive main effects and multiplicative interaction analysis of host-pathogen relationship in rice-bacterial blight pathosystems.Plant Path J, 24(3): 337-351.
27	Purchase J L, Hatting H, van Deventer C S.2000. Genotype × environment interaction of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in South Africa: II. Stability analysis of yield performance. South Afric J Plant Soil, 17: 101-107.
28	Romagosa I, Fox P N, Garcia del Moral L F, Ramos J M, Garcia del Moral B, Roca de Togores F, Molina-Cano J L.1993. Integration of statistical and physiological adaptation in barley cultivars.Theor Appl Genet, 86: 822-826.
29	Sabaghnia N, Sabaghpour S H, Dehghani H.2008. The use of AMMI model and its parameters to analyze yield stability in multi-environment trials.J Agric Sci, 146(5): 571-581.
30	Saied Z F.2010. Survey of adaptation of thirty rice (Oryza sativa L.) genotypes to west Guilan climatic conditions-Astara. J Crop Ecophysiol, 4(15): 111-126. (in Persian with English abstract)
31	Samonte S O P, Wilson L T, McClung A M, Medley J C.2005. Targeting cultivars onto rice growing environments using AMMI and SREG GGE biplot analyses.Crop Sci, 45(6): 2414-2424.
32	Shukla G K.1972. Some statistical aspects of partitioning genotype-environmental components of variability.Heredity, 29(2): 237-245.
33	Sneller M C, Wang J, Dale J K, Strober W, Middelton L A, Choi Y, Fleisher T A, Lim M S, Jaffe E S, Puck J M, Lenardo M J, Straus S E.1997. Clinical, immunologic, and genetic features of an autoimmune lymphoproliferative syndrome associated with abnormal lymphocyte apoptosis.Blood, 89: 1341-1348.
34	Tarang A, Chaleshtary M H, Tolghilani A, Esfahani M.2013. Evaluation of grain yield stability of pure lines of rice in Guilan province.Iran J Crop Sci, 15(1): 24-34. (in Persian with English abstract)
35	Tariku S, Lakew T, Bitew M, Asfaw M.2013. Genotype by environment interaction and grain yield stability analysis of rice (Oryza sativa L.) genotypes evaluated in north western Ethiopia. Net J Agric Sci, 1(1): 10-16.
36	Yan W K, Hunt L A, Sheng O L, Szlavnics Z.2000. Cultivar evaluation and mega-environment investigation based on the GGE biplot.Crop Sci, 40(3): 597-605.
37	Yan W K, Rajcan I.2002. Biplots analysis of the test sites and trait relations of soybean in Ontario.Crop Sci, 42(1): 11-20.
38	Yan W K, Kang M S.2003. GGE Biplot Analysis: A Graphical Tool for Breeders, Geneticists and Agronomists. Boca Raton, USA: CRC Press.
39	Yates F, Cochran W G.1938. The analysis of groups of experiments.J Agric Sci, 28: 556-580.
40	Zobel R W, Wright M J, Gauch H G.1988. Statistical analysis of a yield trial.Agron J, 80(3): 388-393.
41	(Managing Editor: Fang Hongmin)

Location	Soil type	Year	T_max	T_min	Precipitation (mm)
Tonekabon	Silty clay loam	2012	28.42	21.68	357.7
		2013	26.6	22.04	225.8
		2014	26.02	19.1	209.9
Amol	Silt loam	2012	34.04	15.84	125.8
		2013	32.92	15.2	97.8
		2014	34.24	14.72	103.5
Sari	Silt loam	2012	35.34	16.76	136.9
		2013	35.04	15.48	138
		2014	35.2	14.52	101.1
T_max, Maximum temperature; T_min, Minimum temperature.

Location	Soil type	Year	T_max	T_min	Precipitation (mm)
Tonekabon	Silty clay loam	2012	28.42	21.68	357.7
		2013	26.6	22.04	225.8
		2014	26.02	19.1	209.9
Amol	Silt loam	2012	34.04	15.84	125.8
		2013	32.92	15.2	97.8
		2014	34.24	14.72	103.5
Sari	Silt loam	2012	35.34	16.76	136.9
		2013	35.04	15.48	138
		2014	35.2	14.52	101.1
T_max, Maximum temperature; T_min, Minimum temperature.

S.O.V. ^a	df	SS	MS	Proportion	Noise
G	8	25 163 913.2	3 145 489.1**	0.30 ^b	0.11 ^d
E	8	24 561 020.4	3 070 127.5**	0.29 ^b	0.11 ^d
GE	64	34 642 143.0	541 283.5**	0.41 ^b	0.62 ^d
Component 1	15	16 944 012.8	1 129 601.8**	0.49 ^c
Component 2	13	8 185 865.6	629 681.9**	0.24 ^c
Component 3	11	3 366 417.6	306 037.9	0.10 ^c
Component 4	9	3 102 534.2	344 726.0	0.09 ^c
Component 5	7	2 110 207.7	301 458.2	0.06 ^c
Component 6	5	735 189.0	147 037.8	0.02 ^c
Component 7	3	196 850.2	65 616.7	0.006 ^c
Residual	1	1 067.4	1 067.4	0.00003 ^c
Error	162	54 335 177.0	335 402.3
G, Genotype; E, Environment; GE, Genotype × environment interaction; SS, Sum of squares; MS, Mean square.
**, Significant at the 0.01 level.
^aPredicted by the SAS program with repeating 1 000 times splitting data; ^b Calculated by dividing on total SS of G, E and GE; ^c Calculated by dividing on SS of GE; ^d Calculated by [(df × MS Error)/SS].

S.O.V. ^a	df	SS	MS	Proportion	Noise
G	8	25 163 913.2	3 145 489.1**	0.30 ^b	0.11 ^d
E	8	24 561 020.4	3 070 127.5**	0.29 ^b	0.11 ^d
GE	64	34 642 143.0	541 283.5**	0.41 ^b	0.62 ^d
Component 1	15	16 944 012.8	1 129 601.8**	0.49 ^c
Component 2	13	8 185 865.6	629 681.9**	0.24 ^c
Component 3	11	3 366 417.6	306 037.9	0.10 ^c
Component 4	9	3 102 534.2	344 726.0	0.09 ^c
Component 5	7	2 110 207.7	301 458.2	0.06 ^c
Component 6	5	735 189.0	147 037.8	0.02 ^c
Component 7	3	196 850.2	65 616.7	0.006 ^c
Residual	1	1 067.4	1 067.4	0.00003 ^c
Error	162	54 335 177.0	335 402.3
G, Genotype; E, Environment; GE, Genotype × environment interaction; SS, Sum of squares; MS, Mean square.
**, Significant at the 0.01 level.
^aPredicted by the SAS program with repeating 1 000 times splitting data; ^b Calculated by dividing on total SS of G, E and GE; ^c Calculated by dividing on SS of GE; ^d Calculated by [(df × MS Error)/SS].

Genotype	Grain yield	Rank	AMMI-1	AMMI-2	AMMI-3
Genotype	(kg/hm²)	Rank	AMMI-1	AMMI-2	AMMI-3
G1	5 809.0	6	-22.73	-6.22	-9.18
G2	5 632.3	7	-4.98	8.4	9.96
G3	5 264.6	9	13.02	-23.97	7.82
G4	5 298.5	8	20.29	-6.84	-10.12
G5	5 709.7	5	30.1	18.77	-5.41
G6	6 020.8	4	-5.17	4.66	26.05
G7	6 213.7	1	-3.99	-13.06	-5.89
G8	6 093.3	2	-10.83	9.22	2.04
G9	6 030.9	3	-15.72	9.03	-15.28
AMMI-1, AMMI-2 and AMMI-3 are the first three interaction principal component environments, respectively.