Indian Journal of Agricultural Research

  • Chief EditorT. Mohapatra

  • Print ISSN 0367-8245

  • Online ISSN 0976-058X

  • NAAS Rating 5.60

  • SJR 0.293

Frequency :
Bi-monthly (February, April, June, August, October and December)
Indexing Services :
BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Elsevier (Scopus and Embase), AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Submit

Research Article

​Best Linear Unbiased Prediction with Additive Main and Multiplicative Interaction for Stability Analysis of Barley Genotypes Evaluated in Coordinated Program

Ajay Verma, R.P.S. Verma, J. Singh, L. Kumar, G.P. Singh

ABSTRACT

Background: Additive main and multiplicative interaction (AMMI) analysis had been exploited for multi environment trials for most of the crops. Usage of the best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP), along with AMMI tools, of the genotypes would improve the estimation of interaction effects. 
Methods: AMMI based measures of adaptability have been enriched with the incorporation of BLUP of genotypes by new Superiority index that allowed variable weights for stability and yield of genotypes.
Result: Stability measure weighted average of absolute scores (WAASB) based on all significant interaction principal components ranked suitability of KB1754, RD3000, NDB1445 genotypes. Superiority index while weighting 0.65 and 0.35 for mean yield and stability arranged DWRB201, NDB1445, RD2552 as of stable high yield performance of barley genotypes. Corrected measure Modified AMMI Stability Value (MASV1) found RD2552, DWRB201, KB1762 and Modified AMMI Stability Value (MASV) ranked DWRB201, RD2552, KB1762. ASTAB measure achieved the desirable lower values for DWRB201 DWRB207, HUB268 genotypes. Biplot graphical analysis based on 60.7% of variation of the stability measures observed MASV1, ASTAB (AMMI based stability parameter), EV(Averages of the squared eigenvector values), SIPC (Sums of the absolute value of the IPC scores), Za (Absolute value of the relative contribution of IPCs to the interaction), W3, WAASB and MASV had been clubbed together. For the second year lower value of WAASB measure had observed for RD3016, KB1815 HUB273. Ranking of genotypes as per Superiority index found RD3017, RD2907, HUB274 as of stable high yield performance. Genotypes RD3017, RD2907 and NDB1173 pointed out by MASV1 while RD3017, RD2907, NDB1173 identified by MASV as the genotypes of choice. RD3017 NDB1173, RD2907 genotypes were selected as per values of ASTAB measure. Total of 71.8% of variation of the considered measures in biplot analysis expressed larger cluster comprised of AMMI based measures and a separate cluster of Superiority indexes as per mean, Geometric Adaptability Index (GAI) and HMGV also observed.

REFERENCES


  1. Agahi, K., Ahmadi, J., Oghan, H.A., Fotokian, M.H., Orang, S.F. (2020). Analysis of genotype ´ environment interaction for seed yield in spring oilseed rape using the AMMI model. Crop Breeding and Applied Biotechnology. 20(1): e26502012.

  2. Ajay, B.C., Bera, S.K., Singh, A.L., Kumar, N., Gangadhar, K., Kona, P. (2020). Evaluation of Genotype ´ Environment interaction and yield stability analysis in peanut under phosphorus stress condition using stability parameters of AMMI, odel. Agric. Res. 9: 477-486. 

  3. Bocianowski, J., Niemann, J., Nowosad, K. (2019). Genotype-by environment interaction for seed quality traits in interspecific cross-derived Brassica lines using additive main effects and multiplicative interaction model. Euphytica. 215(7): 1-13. 

  4. Farshadfar, E. (2008). Incorporation of AMMI stability value and grain yield in a single non-parametric index (GSI) in bread wheat. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 11: 1791-1796. 

  5. Farshadfar, E., Mahmodi, N. and Yaghotipoor, A. (2011). AMMI stability value and simultaneous estimation of yield and yield stability in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Aust. J. Crop Sci. 5: 1837-1844.

  6. Gauch, H.G. (2013). A simple protocol for AMMI analysis of yield trials. Crop Sci. 53: 1860-1869. 

  7. Olivoto, T., Lucio, A. Dal’Col, Gonzalez, Silva, J.A., da, Marchioro, V.S. (2019). Mean performance and stability in multi- environment trials I: Combining features of AMMI and BLUP techniques. Agron. J. 111: 1-12.

  8. Oyekunle, M., Menkir, A., Mani, H., Olaoye, G., Usman, I.S., Ado, S. (2017). Stability analysis of maize cultivars adapted to tropical environments using AMMI analysis. Cereal Res. Commun. 45: 336-345. 

  9. Piepho, H.P., Mo¨hring, J., Melchinger, A.E., Bu¨chse, A. (2008). BLUP for phenotypic selection in plant breeding and variety testing. Euphytica. 161(1): 209-228.

  10. Rao, A.R. and Prabhakaran, V.T. (2005). Use of AMMI in simultaneous selection of genotypes for yield and stability. Journal of the Indian Society of Agricultural Statistics. 59: 76-82.

  11. Resende, M.D.V, Duarte, J.B. (2007). Precision and quality control in variety trials. Pesquisa Agropecuaria Tropical. 37: 182- 194.

  12. Sneller, C.H., Kilgore-Norquest, L. and Dombek, D. (1997). Repeatability of yield stability statistics in soybean. Crop Science. 37: 383-390.

  13. Zali, H., Farshadfar, E., Sabaghpour, S.H., Karimizadeh, R. (2012). Evaluation of genotype ´ environment interaction in chickpea using measures of stability from AMMI model. Ann. Biol. Res. 3: 3126-3136.

  14. Zobel, R. (1994). Stress Resistance and Root Systems. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Adaptation of Plants to Serious Stresses. 1-4 August. INTSORMIL Publication 94-2, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Recourses. Lincoln, USA: University of Nebraska.
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)