Volume 9, Issue 23 (12-2017)
jcb 2017, 9(23): 18-26 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Dadras A R, Samizadeh H, Sabouri H. (2017). Evaluation of Soybean Varieties and Advanced Lines Yield under Drought Stress Conditions using GGE Biplot Analysis. jcb. 9(23), 18-26. doi:10.29252/jcb.9.23.18
URL: http://jcb.sanru.ac.ir/article-1-870-en.html
URL: http://jcb.sanru.ac.ir/article-1-870-en.html
Gonbad-Kavous University
Abstract: (3950 Views)
Evaluation of varieties and soybean lines under drought stress helps to breeders for detecting of stable and high-yielding genotypes. In this regard an experiment was conducted in randomized complete block design with three replications under normal and drought stress conditions across two locations (four environments). The results of combined analysis of grain yield/plant revealed effects of stress, location and genotype, interaction of stress × location, genotype × stress, genotype × location and genotype × stress × location were significant. In the present study was used GGE biplot method for assessment of 121 varieties and advanced lines of soybean across four environments. The results of biplot method showed that first and second components explained 66 and 22 percent (in total 88 percent) of total variation respectively. That is showing relatively good reliability in explanation of G+GE variation. The results of graphical method showed Gonbad environments (normal and stress) and Rasht environments (normal and stress) were different each other in ranking and determine of adaption. In investigation of polygon biplot was observed in Rasht location under drought stress condition (RD), Gonbad location under normal condition (GN) and Gonbad location under drought condition (GD) genotypes 37 and 34 had the highest yield. In addition these three environments can be considered as one Mega-Environment. Several genotypes were located in sectors that no environments were placed. These genotypes had low yield in most environments. In stability ranking graph, genotypes 8, 9, 49, 63, 42, 86, 39 and 46 had moderate yield and high adaption and those had suitable combination of stability (adaptation) and yield.
Keywords: Combined analysis, Environmental stress, InteractionGGE Graphical method, Mega-Environment
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
اصلاح نباتات، بیومتری
Received: 2017/12/19 | Revised: 2019/04/14 | Accepted: 2017/12/19 | Published: 2017/12/19
Received: 2017/12/19 | Revised: 2019/04/14 | Accepted: 2017/12/19 | Published: 2017/12/19
References
1. Alizadeh, A. 2011. Soil, Water, Plant Relationship. Ferdowsi University of Mashhad Iran, 722 pp (In Persian).
2. Arzani, A. 2011. Breeding Field Crops - Fourth Edition. Isfahan University of Technology Publication Center, 627 pp.
3. Blanche, S.B. and G.O. Myers. 2006. Identifying discriminating locations for cultivar selection in Louisiana. Crop Science, 46: 946-949. [DOI:10.2135/cropsci2005.0279]
4. Changizi, M., R. Choukan, E. Majidi Heravan, M.R. Bihamta and F. Darvish. 2014. Evaluation of genotype×environment interaction and stability of corn hybrids and relationship among univariate parametric methods. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 94: 1255-1267. [DOI:10.4141/cjps2013-386]
5. Choukan, R. 2011. Genotype, environment and genotype×environment interaction effects on the performance of maize (Zea mays L.) inbred lines. Crop Breeding Journal, 1: 97-103.
6. Cooper, M. and I.H. DeLacy. 1994. Relationships among analytical methods used to study genotypic variation and genotype-by-environment interaction in plant breeding multi-environment experiments. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 88: 561-572. [DOI:10.1007/BF01240919]
7. Cornelius, P.L. and J. Crossa. 1999. Prediction assessment of shrinkage estimators of multiplicative models for multi-environment cultivar trials. Crop Science, 39: 998-1009. [DOI:10.2135/cropsci1999.0011183X003900040007x]
8. Dimitrios, B., G. Christos, R. Jesus and B. Eva. 2008. Separation of cotton cultivar testing sites based on representativeness and discriminating ability using GGE biplots. Agronomy Journal,100: 1230-1236. [DOI:10.2134/agronj2007.0363]
9. Fallconer, D.S. 1981. Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. 2nd ed. Longman Press. London, UK. 384 pp.
10. Fan, X.M., M.S. Kang, H. Chen, Y. Zhang, J. Tan and C. Xu. 2007. Yield stability of maize hybrids evaluated in multi-environment trials in Yunnan, China. Agronomy Journal, 99: 220-228. [DOI:10.2134/agronj2006.0144]
11. FAO. 2014. Food Agriculture Organization statistics on line. ttp://faostat.fao.org/site/567/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=567#ancor
12. Gabriel, K.R. 1971. The biplot graphic display of matrices with application to principal component analysis. Biometrika, 58: 453-467. [DOI:10.1093/biomet/58.3.453]
13. Jandong, E.A., M.I. Uguru and B.C. Oyiga. 2011. Determination of yield stability of soybean genotypes across diverse soil pH levels. Journal of Applied Biosciences, 43: 2924-2941.
14. Kempton, R.A. 1984. The use of bi-plots in interpreting variety-by-environment interactions. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge, 103: 123-135 [DOI:10.1017/S0021859600043392]
15. Khajepoor, M.R. 1992. Principles of Agronomy. Isfahan University of Technology Publication, 412 pp (In Persian).
16. Koocheki, A.R., B. Sorkhilaleloo and M.R. Eslamzadeh Hesari. 2012. Yield stability of barley elite genotypes in cold regions of Iran using GGE biplot. Seed and Plant Improvement Journal, 28: 533-543 (In Persian).
17. Latifi, N. 1996. Soybean farming. Mashad jahad daneshgahi publication, 11 pp.
18. Manavalan, L.P., S.K. Guttikonda, L.S.P. Tran and H.T. Nguyen. 2009. Physiological and molecular approaches to improve drought resistance in soybean. Plant and Cell Physiology, 50: 1260-1276. [DOI:10.1093/pcp/pcp082]
19. Meseka, S.K., A. Menkir and A.E.S. Ibrahim. 2008. Yield potential and yield stability of maize hybrids selected for drought tolerance. Journal of Applied Biosciences, 3: 82-90.
20. Moghaddam, M., P. Safari and S.F. Danyali. 2012. GGE Biplot Analysis: A graphical Tool for Breeders, Geneticists and Agronomists. First Edition. Parivar publication, 375 pp.
21. Mohammadi, R., M. Armion, E. Zadhasan, M.M. Ahmadi and D. Sadeghzadeh Ahari. 2012. Genotype×nvironment interaction for grain yield of rainfed durum wheat using the GGE bipot model. Seed and Plant Improvement Journal, 28: 503-518 (In Persian).
22. Mohammadi, R., R. Haghparast, A. Amri and S. Ceccarelli. 2010. Yield stability of rainfed durum wheat and GGE biplot analysis of multi-environment trials. Crop and Pasture Science, 61: 92-101. [DOI:10.1071/CP09151]
23. Mortazavian, S.M.M., H.R. Nikkhah, F.A. Hassani, M. Sharif-al-Hosseini, M. Taheri and M. Mahlooji. 2014. GGE-biplot and AMMI analysis of yield performance of barley genotypes across different environments in Iran. Journal of Agricultral Science and Technology, 16:609-622.
24. Perkins, J.M. and J.L. Jinks. 1971. Environmental and genotype environment components of variability. III. Multiple line and crosses. Heredity, 23: 339-356. [DOI:10.1038/hdy.1968.48]
25. Pourdad, S.S. and J.M. Moghaddam. 2013. Study on Genotype×Environment Interaction Through GGE Biplot for Seed Yield in Spring Rapeseed (Brassica Napus L.) in Rain-Fed Condition. Journal of Crop Breeding, 5: 1-14.
26. Shiri, M., M. Valizadeh, E. Magjidi, A. Sanjari and A. Gharib-Eshghi. 2010. Evaluation of wheat tolerance indices to moisture stress condition. Electronic Journal of Crop Production, 3: 153-171 (In Persian).
27. Yan, W. 1999. A study on the methodology of cultivar evaluation based on yield trial data- with special reference to winter wheat in Ontario. PhD Thesis, university of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.120 pp
28. Yan, W., P.L. Cornelius, J. Crossa and L.A. Hunt. 2001. Two types of GGE biplots for analyzing multi-environment trial data. Crop Science, 41: 656-663. [DOI:10.2135/cropsci2001.413656x]
29. Yan, W. and L.A. Hunt. 2002. Biplot analysis of diallel data. Crop Science, 42: 21-30 [DOI:10.2135/cropsci2002.0021]
30. Yan, W., L.A. Hunt, Q. Sheny and Z. Szlavnics. 2000. Cultivar evaluation and mega-environment nvestigation based on the GGE biplot. Crop Science, 40: 597-605. [DOI:10.2135/cropsci2000.403597x]
31. Yan, W. and M.S. Kang. 2003. GGE biplot analysis: A graphical tool for breeders, geneticists and agronomists.CRC Press, Boca Raton, 605 pp [DOI:10.1201/9781420040371]
32. Yan, W., M.S. Kang, B. Ma, S. Woods and P.L. Cornelius. 2007. GGE biplot vs. AMMI analysis of genotype by environment data. Crop Science, 47: 643-655. [DOI:10.2135/cropsci2006.06.0374]
33. Yan, W. and N.A. Tinker. 2005. An integrated biplot analysis system for displaying, interpreting and exploring genotype × environment interaction. Crop Science, 45: 1004-1016. [DOI:10.2135/cropsci2004.0076]
34. Zare, M., H. Zeinali Khaneghah and J. Daneshian. 2004. An evaluation of tolerance of some soybean genotypes to drought stress. Iranian Journal Agronomy Plant Science, 35: 859-867 (In Persian).
35. Zobel, R.W., M.J. Wright and H.G. Gauch. 1988. Statistical analysis of a yield trial. Agronomy Journal, 80: 388-393. [DOI:10.2134/agronj1988.00021962008000030002x]
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
