Relationships of phenotypic stability measures for genotypes of three cereal crops

Abstract

Mohammadi, R., Roostaei, M., Ansari, Aghaee, M. and Amri, M. 2010. Relationships of phenotypic stability measures for genotypes of three cereal crops. Can. J. Plant Sci. 90: 819Á830. Multi-environment trial (MET) data are required to obtain stability performance parameters as selection tools for effective genotype evaluation. The main objective of this study was to investigate the interrelationships among nine phenotypic stability methods using grain yield from three sets of cereal experiments [15 durum wheat (Triticum turgidum var. durum) genotypes )12 environments; 20 bread wheat (T. aestivum L.) genotypes)18 environments; and 13 barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) genotypes )18 environments]. The experiments were conducted in representative rain-fed areas of Iran in collaboration with the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA). The combined ANOVA for environments (E), genotypes (G) and G )E interaction was highly significant (PB0.01) for each set of data, suggesting differential genotypic responses and the need for stability analysis. The inter-relationships among the parameters and their association with mean yield based on Spearman's rank correlation were determined in each of the three cereal experiments. Highly significant correlations were found between several of the stability measures indicating that several of the statistics probably measure similar aspects of phenotypic stability for these crop species. The AMMI stability value (ASV), variance of regression deviation (S 2 di ) and Wricke's ecovalence (W 2 i ) were consistently and highly correlated with each other over these crops and, therefore, could be used if selection is to be based primarily on stability. The superiority index (Pi) and geometric adaptability index (GAI), which are related to the dynamic concept of stability showed significant correlation with mean yield over these crops, suggesting P i and GAI would be the best methods for ranking genotypes across environments. The coefficient of variation (CV), regression coefficient (b i ), yield reliability index (I i ), and environmental variance (S 2 x ) showed inconsistent relationships with either the static or dynamic concepts of stability over these crops. The correlation analysis provided a good description of static and dynamic concepts of stability for interpreting the G)E interaction and verified that the groups of stability methods (dynamic vs. static) discriminated genotypes in different fashions in these crops.Key words: Rank correlation, phenotypic stability measures, dynamic and static stability Mohammadi, R., Roostaei, M., Ansari, Aghaee, M. et Amri, M. 2010. Liens entre la mesure de la stabilite´du phe´notype et le ge´notype de trois cereals. Can. J. Plant Sci. 90: 819Á830. On a besoin de donne´es multi-environnementales pour e´tablir les parame`tres de la stabilite´qui serviront de moyen de se´lection en vue d'une e´valuation efficace du ge´notype. Cette e´tude avait pour principal objectif d'examiner les relations entre neuf me´thodes d'analyse de...

Statistical methods to study adaptability and stability of wheat genotypes

“…On the other hand, group 2 has the ω i ;σ ˆ2 di , IPCA1 and GGE biplot statistics, which, in turn, are related to the concept of static stability. However, contrary to the report of Mohammadi et al (2010), some parameters were associated between the 2 groups. It is important to highlight the association of statistics of the ANN method with all other statistics, ranged from r s = 0.48 * to r s = 0.77 ** .…”

“…Tadege et al (2014) reported an association of 0.98 ** between the WR method and E-R regression deviation. Mohammadi et al (2010) reported the association between these 3 methods, with high repeatability between trial groups. This scenario occurred because these parameters indicate stability regardless of the average yield.…”

“…Mohammadi et al (2010) also reported that the P i index was one of the best methods for ranking genotypes in GEI trials since it is associated with GY and the dynamic concept of stability. Sabaghnia et al (2006) also reinforced the preference for non-parametric methods, arguing about the ease of use and interpretation.…”

“…Studies comparing the methods to assess wheat adaptability and stability parameters are scarce, and there is no consensus on the most appropriate procedures to be used (Mohammadi et al 2010;Tadege et al 2014). There is a need to perform studies that compare traditional methods and recent statistical models, indicating the methodologies that can increase the accuracy of the selection process of wheat genotypes, which results in greater genetic gain.…”

Use of AMMI and other stability statistics in the simultaneous selection of rice genotypes for yield and stability under direct-seeded conditions

“…The importance of GEI in national cultivar evaluation and breeding programs has been demonstrated in almost all major crops (Najafian et al, 2010;Zali et al, 2011). Various statistical methods/ models (parametric and non-parametric), concepts, and definitions of stability have been described over the years by many researchers (Lin et al, 1986;Becker and Léon, 1988;Crossa et al, 1990;Lin and Binns, 1994;Hussein et al, 2000;Mohammadi and Amri, 2008;Mohammadi et al, 2010). The model used for GEI is similar to a static or biological concept of stability (Becker and Léon, 1988) and the parameters used in the study are the coefficient of determination (Ri 2 ) (Pinthus, 1973), coefficient of variability (CVi) (Francis and Kannenberg, 1978), and the genotypic variances across environments (Si 2 ) (Roemer, 1917).…”