Significant variation among test genotype over environments was observed for seed yield, suggesting broad range of variation among genotypes. Environment and G × E mean sum of square were also highly significant for seed yield (Table 2).
AMMI biplot analysis
Additive mean effect and multiplicative interaction analysis for seed yield showed high significant differences among genotypes, environments and gene and environment interactions (Table 1 and Table 2). The gene× environment components was further divided and explained by two IPCA (interaction principal components axes) namely, IPCA I and IPCA II. First two IPCA axes explained more than 84.11% (PC 1= 58.3%; PC 2= 25.8%) of total variation and thus this model was effective in explaining gene× environment components and interaction in the present study (Fig 1 and 2).
Graphical analysis of IPCA I with average seed yield revealed that genotype G
4 ‘AKWB-1’ had the high value for yield but genotype G
2 ‘AKWB13-5’ had the highest positive AMMI1 score (Fig 1). Among environments, E
4 was most favorable for seed yield but high negative interaction with genotypes (-13.22) followed by E
5 shows low yield and negative interaction (-2.92) with test genotypes were observed. Positive interaction with test genotypes was observed for environments E
1, E
2, E
3 and E
6 even though mean value was less than E
4. In AMMI model, if genotype having high value for trait and it is greater than grand mean and near to zero IPCA score are considered under general adaptability across environments. Thus, G
4 was having general adaptability. However, genotypes with high value for trait and IPCA scores towards larger value are considered under specific adaptability to the environments. Genotypes, G
5 (RMDWB-1) and G
2 (AKWB13-5) were considered under specific adaptation due to high seed yield and large IPCA score.
All the six environments showed different mean for yield and because of that AMMI2 biplot does not show the additive main effects, interaction as suggested by AMMI1 biplot, but interaction component is very informative (Fig 2). This graph is useful when IPCA2 is sizeable and significant. In AMMI2 biplots, if a genotype is located near to the bioplot centre it will considered more stable than those located far from the centre. Genotype G
5 (RMDWB-1) followed by G
2 (AKWB13-5) were found stable genotypes. Most stable was environment E
2 followed by E
3 and E
2 as observed in AMMI2 score. Genotypes G2 and G4 are having positive interaction with E
3, whereas G
7 and G
5 had high positive interaction with E
2.
According to the IPCA I vs IPCA II scores of genotypes and environments, when a genotype is near to an environment, it indicates that the genotype is specifically adapted to that environment
(Shafii et al., 1992; Kumar et al., 2016). Thus, genotypes G2 and G5 were recognized as superior and stable genotypes for environment E2 (Fig 2). In order to select appropriate environment with high ability for distinguishing genotypes, environments should have a high IPCA I and low IPCA II
(Mohammadi et al., 2008). According to IPCA I, E1 and E2 environments had the most stability and the least contribution of interaction, whereas E3 and E6 with the least IPCA I had the most contribution to produce GEI. Most ideal environment was found to be E2 (based on the high IPCA I and the low IPCA II). AMMI stability parameters for environments have been used by several researchers in order to analyze GEI and found stable and compatible genotypes to such environments
(Yan et al., 2000; Yan, 1999;
Yan and Rajcan, 2002;
Mohammadi et al., 2008).
GGE biplot analysis
Graphical virtualization for identification and evaluation of genotypes, environments and their interactions is facilitates by GGE biplot
(Yan et al., 2000). Genotype × genotype environment (GGE) biplot analysis revealed that the first two principal components PC1 and PC2 explained 94% of the total variation comprising PC1 = 77.5% and PC2 = 16.5% (Fig 3). Genotypes with have high PC1 scores and low PC2 scores were considered under ideal. Environments should be considered as ideal it has high PC1 scores and low PC2 scores (
Yan and Rajcan, 2002;
Yan et al., 2000). Accordingly, the genotypes G4 and G5are high yielder and G1 and G2 with large negative PC1 scores were comes under low yielder genotypes (Fig 3). Genotypes with low PC2 scores such as G3 can be considered as stable. Large PC1 scores of environment are those environments that better differentiate the genotypes and PC2 scores near zero are represent an average suitable environment (
Yan, 2001;
Yan et al., 2000). Projection to the
y-axis (AEA line) produces measure for the stability of the genotypes. This signifies that, greater the absolute length of the projection of a genotype, the less stable it is and
vice-versa (
Yan, 2001).
The AEA line partitioned genotypes which yield below and above the mean yield (Fig 3). The genotypes to the right of this line are high yielders while left side is low yielders. Therefore, the genotype ranking according to this interpretation is in the order of G4, G5, G3, G2 and G1 (Fig 4). G1 is the poorest genotype for grain yield, whereas genotype ‘G4’ was identified as the ideal genotype as shown by the concentric circles around it (Fig 4). Further, genotype ‘G4’ (AKWB-1) had a projection on the y-axis that is zero and therefore it has absolute stability
i.e., wider adaptation to all the test environments and it would be recommended uniformly for cultivation in all the three agro-climatic zones of the Chhattisgarh state, India. The local check genotype ‘G5’ (RMDWB-1) is also among the high yielding and relatively stable genotype. Using E3 as an ideal environment, environments in closer concentric circles
e.g., E5 and E2 were considered as ideal environments while E1 and E4 were poor environments (Fig 5). Assessment of genotypes under different environment is essential to evaluate quantitative characters, to measures stability and adoptability. A complex trait like yield is highly influenced by environment. Further, to evaluate multi-environment data in effective way use of both the models are recommended (
Gauch and Zobel, 1988).