Legume Research

  • Chief EditorJ. S. Sandhu

  • Print ISSN 0250-5371

  • Online ISSN 0976-0571

  • NAAS Rating 6.80

  • SJR 0.391

  • Impact Factor 0.8 (2024)

Frequency :
Monthly (January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November 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
Legume Research, volume 46 issue 9 (september 2023) : 1105-1116

AMMI and GGE Stability Analysis of Drought Tolerant Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L) Genotypes for Target Environments

P. Jagan Mohan Rao1,*, N. Sandhyakishore2, S. Srinivasan3, S. Sandeep4, G. Praveen5, G. Neelima6, G. Anil Kumar7
1Seed Research and Technology Center, Professor Jayashankar Telangana State Agricultural University, Rajendranagr 500 030, Telangana, India.
2Regional Agricultural Research Station, Warangal, Professor Jayashankar Telangana State Agricultural University, Hanamkonda-506 007, Telangana, India.
3International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-arid Tropics, Patancheru, Hyderabad-502 324, Telangana, India.
4Agricultural Research Station, Tandur, Professor Jayashankar Telangana State Agricultural University, Vikarabad-501 141, Telangana, India.
5Regional Sugarcane and Rice Research Station, Rudrur, PJTSAU, Nizamabad-503 188, Telangana, India.
6Regional Agricultural Research Station, Palem, PJTSAU, Nagarkurnool-509 215, Telangana, India.
7Agricultural Research Station, Adilabad, PJTSAU, Adilabad-504 002, Telangana, India.
  • Submitted20-04-2023|

  • Accepted19-06-2023|

  • First Online 17-07-2023|

  • doi 10.18805/LR-5156

Cite article:- Rao Mohan Jagan P., Sandhyakishore N., Srinivasan S., Sandeep S. , Praveen G., Neelima G., Kumar Anil G. (2023). AMMI and GGE Stability Analysis of Drought Tolerant Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L) Genotypes for Target Environments . Legume Research. 46(9): 1105-1116. doi: 10.18805/LR-5156.

Background: Chickpea is an important nutrient rich food legume cultivated mainly as rainfed crop in arid and semiarid regions of India. Due to changed climatic conditions incidence of frequent drought stress events are causing significant yield losses,

Methods: In order to identify superior and locally adaptable genotypes under rainfed conditions multi-environment chickpea evaluation trial was conducted in five environments with 50 genotypes during Rabi, 2021-2022 stability analysis for grain yield was performed by deploying the AMMI (Additive Main Effects and Multiplicative Interaction) model and GGE (Genotype and Genotype by Environment) biplot method with an aim to identify the high yielding stable chickpea genotypes.

Result: The AMMI analysis of variance for grain yield (kg ha-1) of 50 chickpea genotypes revealed significant genotype, environment, and G×E interaction indicating the presence of variability among the genotypes and environments. The mean grain yield of 50 genotypes over environments ranged from 1296 kg/ha (G39) to 2222 kg/ha (G8). The Genotype G24 exhibited high grain yield than mean yield with specific adaptability for the environment E2 (Palem). The results indicated that, environment E5 (Warangal) was identified as the best suited for potential expression of grain yield. Results of stability analysis revealed that G 17exhibited high grain yield along with high stability across the locations with desirable mean performance.


Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.; 2n = 2x = 16) is the second most important food legume next to dry bean grown under residual soil moisture conditions. Globally chickpea cultivated in an area of 15 M ha with a total production of 15.8 Mt (FAOSTAT, 2021). India alone contributes >75% of global chickpea area as well as production. India imports chickpea grain to meet the local demand from Australia (83.5%), USA (3.8%), Myanmar (3.5%), Tanzania (3.3%) and Sudan (2.1%) (http://agricoop.nic. 2021). Within India, central (Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Gujarat) and southern states (Karnataka, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh) are the major chickpea producing regions in terms of area, production and productivity (http://dpd.gov.in, 2021).
In Telangana, chickpea cultivated during winter as a single crop with 1 or 2 supplementary irrigations or planted under residual soil moisture conditions after harvesting the preceding kharif crops like rice, maize, cotton and soybean. Hence it is important to identify suitable chickpea genotypes adaptable to local growing conditions of Telangana state with market preferred seed traits.
Early flowering or early maturity and suitability to machine harvesting are the two important traits should be embedded in the newly developed drought tolerant varieties along with basic resistance to fusarium wilt disease (Gaur et al., 2019). In India, the traditional chickpea varieties are short and bushy types where farmers use human labour for harvesting and threshing operations. The recently developed varieties NBeG 47, RVG 204, Phule Vikram and BG 3062 (Divya Madhuri and Jayalakshmi 2020; Jayalakshmi et al., 2017; Mannur et al., 2013; https://www.icrisat.org/two-new-machine-harvestable-chickpea-varieties-released-in-india) are tall (>55 cm height) types with erect to semi-erect growth habit which are amicable for machine harvesting. Such varieties can be harvested using combine harvesters with <5% threshing losses and farmers save time and money.
The majority of chickpea was grown under receding soil moisture conditions under rainfed conditions. Thus, soil moisture deficit during the reproductive stages of the crop growth period called terminal drought became the most frequent abiotic stress that affected over two thirds of the global chickpea area (Gaur et al., 2019; Rani et al., 2020). As a result, drought stress conditions have resulted in significant yield losses in chickpea (Devasirvatham and Tan, 2018; Rani et al., 2020). The differential response of chickpea cultivars under diverse environmental conditions decreases yield stability (Funga et al., 2017).
Yield is a complex trait controlled by several quantitative loci and the direct selection of genotypes with high yield under stress conditions is highly influenced by G×E interactions (Kushwah et al., 2021). Hence, estimation of G×E is a critical component in identifying superior and stable genotypes as well as their adaptation to diverse environments (Kanouni et al., 2015).Genotype environment interaction (GEI) is associated with the performance and stability of cultivars across different environments (Yan and Hunt, 2002; Mwiinga et al., 2020). It is important to analyse the yield and stability of chickpea genotypes through multi-environment trials. The GGE biplot analysis is a modification of best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP) and is superior as it displays both genotypes and GEI which are the sources of variation. GGE biplot analysis is widely used for identifying and selecting the best performing lines in specific and across environments (Khan et al., 2021).
A set of 50 desi genotypes of chickpea collected from ICRISAT, Hyderabad which includes 47 advanced breeding lines bred exclusively for drought tolerance and 3 commercial lines as check varieties were evaluated for their yield performance (kg/ha) at different locations in the state of Telangana, India during rabi 2021-2022. The experiment was conducted at five research cum instructional farms viz., Adilabad (19°39' N, 78°32'E), Palem (16°35' N, 78°10'E), Rudrur(18°58'N, 77°88E),Tandur (17°15'N, 77°35'E), Warangal (18°03'N, 79°22'E) of Professor Jayashankar Telangana State Agricultural University during crop season of 2021-2022 (Table 1). Each trial was conducted in randomized block design with three replications. The seeds were planted at a spacing of 30×10 cm on a 4 m row plot. Experiments were conducted on vertisols and 5 cm flood or sprinkler irrigation was given to establish uniform germination across the locations. Standard agronomic practices were followed for successful crop establishment in each environment. A single manual weeding and two intercultural operations were conducted within 35 days after sowing and grain yield (GY) were recorded in each plot.

Table 1: Meteorological data recorded during cropping season of 2021-22.

The combined analysis of variance was preceded to study the genotype × environment interaction of the genotypes across all environments. The AMMI model which combines standard analysis of variance with PC analysis was used to study the interactions (Zobel et al., 1988). 
The AMMI model for G genotypes and E environments can be written as
        Yij = µ + gi + ej+  Σλnαinλjn + θij
Yij = Mean yield of ith genotype in the jth environment.
µ= General mean.
gi = ith genotypic effect.
e= jth location effect.  
λ= Eigen value of the principal component axis n.
αin and λjn=  ith genotype.
jth= Environment principle component analysis (PCA) scores the PCA axis n.
θij = Residual.
n= Number of PCA axis retained in the model.
A windows based software GEA-R9 genotype × environment analysis with R for (Windows) version 4.1 developed by CIMMYT, Mexico was used for AMMI and GGE biplot analysis (Pacheco et al., 2015). The number of PCA axis to be retained is determined by testing the mean square of each axis with the estimate of residual through F-statistic (Gollob 1968; Gauch 1988). GGE biplot analysis was carried out using the AMMI model R-packages 1.5 PBTools 1.4 version IRRI (PBTools 2014). The AMMI biplot is generated by placing both genotype of environment mean value on X-axis and the respective IPCA axis eigen vector on the Y-axis (Zobel et al., 1988).
The pooled analysis of variance for grain yield (Table 3) revealed significant differences among genotypes, environments and significant genotype × environment interaction. The genotype × environment interaction effect was significant emphasizing the influence of environment on grain yield of chickpea genotypes under study. In the current study, as depicted by the mean grain yield of 50 genotypes ranged 1296 kg/ha (G39) to 2222 kg/ha (G8) with mean yield of 1870 kg/ha (Table 2). Among the five environments tested, highest and lowest mean grain yields were obtained from environments E5 (Warangal; 2080 kg/ha) and E2 (Palem;1526 kg/ha) respectively.Genotypic performance of pigeonpea and other crops in relation to different environments has been estimated by worker like Xing et al., (2021), Amiri et al., (2015).

Table 2: Mean grain yield of fifty chickpea genotypes.


Table 3: AMMI analysis of variance for G x E interaction.

The AMMI analysis of variance for grain yield (kg ha-1) of 50chickpea genotypes evaluated across the five environments revealed that the main effects of genotypes (G) and environments (E) accounted for 22.71% and 17.86% of the total sum of squares respectively (Table 3). The G × E interaction also accounted for 59.41% of the total sum of squares clearly depicting the diversity among the genotypes and their differential reaction to environmental conditions, which facilitates selection of genotype suitable for particular environment or multiple environments.Similar findings found in the studies by Dehghani et al., (2006), Tolessa et al., (2013) and Singamsetti et al., (2021)  and Sriwichai et al., (2021) where GEI accounted maximum among the genotypes of field pea, wheat, maize and winged bean respectively indicating that the differences in the response of the genotypes across the environment were substantial and the presence of G × E interaction. AMMI revealed major part of the variation in yield is due to environment indicating the diversity of the environment in the present study when the interaction was partitioned among the first four interaction principal component axis (IPCA) as they were significant in predictive assessment. All the interaction PCA were highly significant capturing 46.33%, 28.63%, 17.46% and 7.6% of the total variation in the G × E interaction sum of squares, respectively. The first two interaction PCA axes combinedly accounted for 80.0% of the G × E interaction sum of squares, endorsing that the model’s use of GGE biplot to explain variation caused by G+E+GEI across environments was effective. Similarly, Zewdu et al., (2020), Das et al., (2010) and Umma et al., (2013) earlier reported that first two PCAs explained the maximum GEI. Thus, the GEI of the 50 chickpea genotypes tested in five diverse environments was mostly explained by the first two principal components of genotypes and environments. AMMI revealed major part of the variation in yield is due to environment indicating the diversity of the environment in the present study. Previous reports confirmed that in most of the cases the maximum GEI could be explained through using the first two PCAs (Fikere et al., 2014; Biswas et al., 2019). Hence, IPCA1 and IPCA2 were used for generation of AMMI1 and AMMI2 biplots.
Biplot analysis
The results of AMMI analysis further elucidated the relative contribution of first two IPCA axes to the interaction effects by plotting with genotype and environment means as depicted in Fig 1 and 2. The mean performances along with PCA1 scores for both varieties as well as environments used to construct the biplots are presented in Table 2 and 3. In the biplot, environments are designated by the letter ‘ENV’ followed by numbers 1 to 5 as suffix (Table 1, Fig 1), while genotypes represented by numbers from 1 to 50 (Table 2, Fig 1). The quadrants in the graph represent: (QI and QII) higher mean, (QIII and QIV) lower mean, (QI and QIV) +ve IPCA1 and (QII and QIII) –ve IPCA1 scores (Fig 1). When a variety and the environment have similar sign on PCA1 axis, their interaction is meant positive and if opposite, their interaction is considered negative. Therefore, a variety with near to zero PCA1 score mean that it had small interaction effect and hence was considered as stable over wide environments. On the contrary, varieties with high mean yield and large PCA scores were regarded as clearly adapted to specific environments (Abdi and Williams, 2010; Askari et al., 2017; Mustapha and Bakari, 2014).

Fig 1: The AMMI biplot of the first interaction principal component axis (PCA 1) versus mean yields of fifty chickpea genotypes across five environments.

Accordingly, in the present study, the chickpea genotypes, G35, G10 and G49 exhibited high yield positive IPCA 1 score and among all genotypes, G35 is being the overall best genotype. On the other hand, G8, G43 and G20 were high yielding genotypes with negative IPCA 1 scores, While IPCA 1 for G9, G24, G7 and G13 were near to zero score and hence have less interaction with the environments out of which G9 and G13 had above average yield performance.
AMMI-2 relationships among genotypes and environments
In AMMI 2 biplot (Fig 2), The biplot 2 provides on the G×E interaction only and not like AMMI 1as the AMMI biplot 1 included main effect also. It was observed from the AMMI 2 biplot analysis (Fig 2) that genotypes showing less interaction in both axes are positioned near to the origin and vice versa. So, the genotypes placed near the origin were regarded as stable compared to others. Likewise, genotypes lying away from the origin and having long spokes were considered as highly interacting types. Hence, environments E5, E1 and E3 exerted strong interaction forces while, the rest two E2 and E4 did less. In the present study, G6, G19, G20, G21, G28, G35, G5 and G3 had more responsive since they were located far from the origin,while the genotypes G39, G17, G13 and G33 were nearer to origin and hence they were less sensitive to environmental forces. In overall, G17 (2059 kg/ha) showed very less genotype × environmental interaction and high stability with high yield.

Fig 2: The AMMI 2 biplot of the first interaction principal component axis (PCA 1) versus the second interaction principal component axis (PCA 2) for chickpea genotypes.

GGE Bi-plot analysis
GGE Biplot of Environment-view for yield
Environment centered GGE biplot used to estimate the pattern of environments (Fig 3). Lines connecting the test environments to biplot origin as environment vectors were drawn to compare the association between environments. The angle cosine between two environments is used to explain the extent of correlation among them (Dehghani et al., 2010).  Environments E2 and E4 are positively correlated (an acute angle). The presence of wide obtuse angle among environments is an indication of high cross over genotype × environment interaction (Yan and Tinker, 2006). In the present study, the environments E3 and E1 are negatively correlated (an obtuse angle).

Fig 3: Environment vector view of the GGE-biplot showing the relationship among five environments.

GGE Biplot on environment for comparing environments with ideal environment
An ideal environment is representative and has the highest discriminating power (Yan and Tinker, 2006). Differentiating capability and precise representation of testing environments are two pivotal roles of GGE biplot. The concentric circles depicted in Fig 4 and 5 aid in visualizing the length of environment vectors, which are the indicators of the discriminating ability of environments and also standard deviation within the respective environments. Kang-Bo-Shm et al. (2015). The environments E1 and E5 are most discriminating. Accordingly, the environments E2 is the most representative whereas the environments E1 and E5 are least representative. Test environments possessing discriminating ability as well as representativeness are highly suitable for selecting adaptable genotypes. Discriminating but non representative test environment like E1 and E5 are useful for selecting adaptable genotypes.  

Fig 4: Vector view of GGE biplot of genotype-focused scaling.


Fig 5: GGE biplot on environment focused for comparing environments with ideal environment.

Biplot of stability and mean performance of genotypes across average environments
The line passing through biplot origin and the average environment depicted with a single arrow constitutes the average environment axis (AEA). Projections of genotypic markers to AEA represent the mean genotype yield (Fig 6). Genotypes are ranked along the ordinate. The results revealed that the line perpendicular to the average environment axis (AEA) separated the genotypes into two groups (those above average and those below average). The genotypes with above average yield are G35, G28, G17, G49, G23, G30, G8, G36, G40, G32, G15, G20, G47. The genotypes with below average yield are G44, G11,G29, G34, G33, G18, G45, G1, G48, G12, G45, G29,G46, G39 and G38. Of all the genotypes G8 and G35 were high yielders, while G39 was the poorest yielder.  The AEA ordinate is the double arrowed line that passes through the biplot origin and is perpendicular to the AEA abscissa. Greater projection onto AEA ordinate regardless of the direction means greater stability. (Yan, 2001, Yan et al., 2007). The genotypes G10, G23, G28, G18, G12, G9, G27 and G24 with shorter projections are stable over environments. Among these, genotypes stable and high yielding are G10, G23, G28, G17, G9 and G24. Whereas the genotypes G18, G12 and G27 were considered stable but had low seed yield. Therefore genotypes G10, G23, G17 and G28 were identified as stable and high yielding genotypes. The genotype G17 recorded the shortest projection and lies closest to the AEA ordinate hence chosen as best genotype and is at par in yield with the best checks.An ideal genotype express its full genetic potential and perform consistently across the environments. (Kaya et al., 2006, Yan and Tinker 2006). The environment (ENV2) has been located in the closest of the axis and is thought to be best environment  for assessing the stability of the genotypes. This environment is the most representative of all. The ability of genotypes to withstand the aberrant weather conditions in the representative environment are the best ones for the selection. These results are in compliance with the findings of Akinyosoye, (2022) and Tiwari et al., (2022) that the environment closest to the axis/concentric point is ideal for selection of stable genotypes. Environment 5 (ENV5) recorded longest projectiles from the axis implying that this is the best environment for selecting high yielding genotypes but it does not mean that genotypes chosen in these environment are stable, however genotypes selected for high yield in these environments can be utilized for breeding for high yielding varieties. Yan and Kang (2003) reported that the distances from the biplot origin were indicative of the amount of interaction exhibited by genotypes over environments or environments over genotypes.

Fig 6: Biplot of stability and mean performance of genotypes across average environments.

“Which-Won-Where” pattern analysis
Genotypes having specific adaptative ability for specific environment or group of environments were identified using “Which-Won-Where pattern analysis” and “ranking of genotypes in individual environments” using GGE Biplot tools. In comparison to AMMI, GGE bi-plot precisely identifies the best G × E interaction and also clearly indicates as to which genotype performs best in what type of environment thereby aiding in identification of mega-environments (Yan and Kang, 2003). The studied environments were divided into three mega environments i.e., E1, E3and E5. In mega environment E5, the winning genotype is G31, while the genotype G6 is the winner in mega environment E1, whereas, E2 and E3 are closely related and fall under the mega environment E4 and the winning genotype is G35.The other promising genotypes in the mega environment are G10, G8, G28, G40 and G22. The polygon outlook of GGE bi-plot (Fig 7) gives inputs on the best genotype(s) in each environment. The vertex genotypes (G3, G2,G46,G6 and G35) have the longest vectors, in their respective direction, which is a measure of responsiveness to environments (Fig 7). Vertex genotypes in every sector gave highest yields in the environments under that sector. The genotype with the high yield in E1, E2 and E4 is G35. The other vertex genotypes G46, G39, G38,G7andG2 are the poorest in all environments because there is no environment in their sectors. Our findings are in agreement with those of Ebadi et al., (2010) and Akinyosoye (2022) who reported that genotype in each environment sector could be grown at each of the locations where they demonstrated comparative advantage in seed production. Genotypes that did not fit into any of the environment sector are not appropriate for cultivation in any of the environments under study.

Fig 7: What-won-where GGE biplot of grain yields of fifty chickpea genotypes across five environments.

The study indicated that yield stability was significantly affected by genotype, environment and their interaction and major interaction effects were explained by the first two principal components as per the AMMI model. The genotypes G8 (2222 kg/ha), G35 (2204 kg/ha), G10 (2172 kg/ha), G26 (2157 kg/ha) G23 (2133 kg/ha) yielded above the overall genotypes average, whereas the genotype G39 (1296 kg/ha) was the poor yielder. The genotypes stable and high yielding are G10 (2172 kg/ha), G23 (2133 kg/ha), G28 (2102 kg/ha), G17 (2059 kg/ha), G9 (1915 kg/ha) and G24 (1912 kg/ha) respectively. The Genotype G24 exhibited high grain yield than mean yield with specific adaptability for the environment E2 (Palem), genotypes G6 is for the environment E3 (Rudrur) and genotype G34 for the environment E4 (Tandur). The environment E2 is the most representative whereas the environments E1 and E5 are least representative. The result indicated that Environment E5 (Warangal) has recorded highest mean grain yield (2080 kg/ha) and identified as best suited environment for potential expression of grain yield.
The genotype G17 presented high grain yield stability across the environments with desirable mean performance (2059 kg/ha)and this genotype can be given to farmers field for further evaluation before its release for general cultivation.
We are highly grateful to the University authorities and Government of Telangana for granting funds under RKVY project to the first author and extending all facilities to carry out the project successfully.

  1. Abdi, H. and Williams, L.J. (2010). Principal Component Analysis, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics.  2: 433-459. 

  2. Area and production of agricultural crops. 2021-2022. http://agrcoop.nic.

  3. Akinyosoye, S.T. (2022). Genotype-genotype×environment (GGE) biplot analysis of extra-early maturing quality protein maize hybrids for grain yield.  Journal of Crop Science and Biotechnology. 25(5): 599-610.

  4. Amiri, R., Bahraminejad, S., Sasani, S., Jalali-Honarmand, S. and Fakhri, R. (2015). Bread wheat genetic variation for grain’s  protein, iron and zinc concentrations as uptake by their genetic ability. European Journal of Agronomy. 67: 20-26.

  5. Anonymous, Jayalakshmi, V. (2016).  Machine harvestable chickpea varieties for a self-sufficient, food and nutrition secure india. Available at https://www.icrisat.org/two-new-machine -harvestable-chickpea-varieties-released-in-india.

  6. Askari, H., Kazemitabar, K.S., Zarrini, N.H., Saberi, H.M. (2017). Analysis of the genotype by salt interaction of Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) genotypes at early growth stage by graphical models. International Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Research. 3: 190-196. 

  7. Biswas, T., Debasis, M., Arpita, D., Dinesh, P.K., Anirban, M., Parihar, A.K., Gupta, S. (2019). Additive main effects and multiplicative interaction in field pea (Pisum sativum L.) genotypes across the major agro-climatic zones in India. Legume Research.  https://www.doi.org/10.18805/LR-4166.

  8. Das, S., Misra, R.C., Patnaik, M.C. and Das, S.R. (2010). G×E interaction, adaptability and yield stability of mid-early rice genotypes. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 44(2): 104-111.

  9. Dehghani, H., Ebadi, A., Yousefi, A. (2006). Biplot analysis of genotype by environment interaction for barley yield in Iran. Agronomy Journal. 98: 388-393. 

  10. Dehghani, H., Sabaghpour, S.H., Ebadi. (2010). Study of genotype × environment interaction for chickpea yield in Iran. Agronomy Journal. 102: 1-8.

  11. Devasirvatham, V. and Tan, D.K. (2018).Impact of high temperature and drought stresses on chickpea production. Agronomy. 8: 145.

  12. Divya Madhuri, R. and Jayalakshmi, V. (2020).Identification of high yielding mechanical harvestable chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes under rainfed and irrigated conditions. International Journal of Chemical Studies. 8: 368-375.

  13. Ebadi, A., Sabaghpour, S., Dehghani, H. and Kamrani, M. (2010). Screening of superior chickpea accessions for various environments of Iran using genotype plus genotype × environment (GGE) biplot analysis. Journal of Plant Breeding and Crop Science. 2(9): 286-292.

  14. FAO (2021). World Food and Agriculture - Statistical Yearbook 2021. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb4477en.

  15. Fikere, M., Bing, D.J., Tadesse, T., Ayana, A. (2014). Comparison of biometrical methods to describe yield stability in field pea (Pisum sativum L.) under south eastern ethiopian conditions. African Journal of Agricultural Research. 9: 2574-2583.

  16. Funga, A., Megersa, T., Million, E., Asnake, F., Lijalem, K., Nigussie, G., Dagnachew, B., Ridwan, M., Zewdie, B., Ganga, R.N.V.P.R., Moses, S., Emmanuel, M., Pooran, G., Chris, O. (2017). Genotype by environment interaction on yield stability of desi type chickpea at major chickpea producing areas of Ethiopia. Australian Journal of Crop Science. 11: 212-219.

  17. Gauch, H.G. (1988). Model selection and validation for yield trials with interaction. Biometrics. 44: 705-715.

  18. Gaur, P.M., Samineni, S., Thudi, M., Tripathi, S., Sajja, S.B., Jayalakshmi, V., Mannur, D.M., Vijayakumar, A.G., Ganga Rao, N.V., Ojiewo, C., Fikre, A. (2019). Integrated breeding approaches for improving drought and heat adaptation in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Plant Breeding. 138: 389-400.

  19. Gollob, H.F. (1968). A statistical model which combines features of factor analytic and analysis of variance techniques. Psychometrika. 33: 73-115.

  20. Hand Book of Pulses, 2020- 2021. http://dpd.gov.in.

  21. Jayalakshmi, V., Reddy, A.T., Kamakshi, N., KhayumAhammad, S., Munirathnam, P., Gaur, P.M. (2017). Prospects of new chickpea varieties in Andhra Pradesh. Proceedings of Inter Drought -V, HICC, Hyderabad, India. Poster abstracts. 187: 21-25

  22. Kang-Bo, S., Seong-Hyu, S., Ji-Young, S., Shin-Gu, K., Woon-Ho, Sung, G. (2015). Interpretation of genotype × environment interaction of Sesame yield using GGE Biplot analysis. Journal of Crop Science. 60: 349-354.

  23. Kanouni, H., Farayedi, Y., Saeid, A., Sabaghpour, S.H. (2015). Stability analyses for seed yield of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes in the Western cold zone of Iran. Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 7: 219-230.

  24. Kaya, Y., Akçura, M. and Taner, S. (2006). GGE-biplot analysis of multi-environment yield trials in bread wheat. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry. 30(5): 325-337

  25. Khan, M.M.H., Rafii, M.Y., Ramlee, S.I., Jusoh, M., Al Mamun, M. (2021). AMMI and GGE biplot analysis for yield performance and stability assessment of selected bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea L.) genotypes under the multi- environmental trials (METs). Scientific Reports. 11(1): 1- 17. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-01411-2.

  26. Kushwah, A., Bhatia, D., Singh, G. (2021). Phenotypic evaluation of genetic variability and selection of yield contributing traits in chickpea recombinant inbred line population under high temperature stress. Physiology and Molecular Biology of Plants. 27: 747-767.

  27. Mannur, D.M. (2013). New chickpea variety for mechanical harvesting. Proceedings of Pulses News Letter, Indian Institute of Pulse Research, Kanpur. 24.

  28. Mustapha, M. and Bakari, H.R. (2014). Statistical evaluation of genotype by environment interactions for grain yield in millet (Penniisetum glaucum L.). The International Journal of Engineering and Science. 3: 7-16. 

  29. Mwiinga, B., Sibiya, J., Kondwakwenda, A., Musvosvi, C., Chigeza, G. (2020). Genotype × environment interaction analysis of soybean (Glycine max L.) grain yield across production environments in southern Africa. Field Crops Research. 256: 107922. DOI: 10.1016/j.fcr.2020.107922.

  30. Pacheco, A., Vargas, M., Alvarado, G., Rodriguez, F., Crossa, J., Burgueno (2015). GEA-R (Genotype × Environment Analysis with R for Windows) Version 4.1. Hdl.11529/10203, CIMMYT Research Data and Software Repository Network.

  31. Rani, A., Devi, P., Jha, U.C., Sharma, K.D., Siddique, K.H., Nayyar, H. (2020). Developing climate-resilient chickpea involving physiological and molecular approaches with a focus on temperature and drought stresses. Frontiers in Plant Science. 10: 1759.

  32. Tiwari, J.K., Kanwar, R.R., Yadav, R.K. and Singh, A.K. (2022). Yield stability analysis in an underutilized legume ‘winged bean’ (Psophocarpus tetragonolobus L.).  Legume Research -An International Journal.  45(2): 209-214.

  33. Tolessa, T.T., Keneni, G., Sefera, T., Jarso, M., Bekele, Y. (2013). Genotype × environment interaction and performance stability for grain yield in field pea (Pisum sativum L.) genotypes. International. Journal of Plant Breeding. 7: 116-123. 

  34. Singamsetti, A., Shahi, J.P., Zaidi, P.H., Seetharam, K., Vinayan, M.T., Kumar, M. (2021). Genotype × environment interaction and selection of maize (Zea mays L.) hybrids across moisture regimes. Field Crops Research. 270: 108224. 

  35. Sriwichai, S., Monkham, T., Sanitchon, J., Jogloy, S., Chankaew, S. (2021). Dual-purpose of the winged bean [Psophocarpus tetragonolobus (L.) DC.], the neglected Tropical legume, based on pod and tuber yields. Plants. 10(8): 1746-1759.

  36. Umma, K.M., Hasan, M., Jamil-Akter, A., Rahman, H. and Biswas, P. (2013). Genotype-environment interaction and stability analysis in hybrid rice: an application of additive main effects and multiplicative interaction. Bangladesh Journal of Botany. 42(1): 73-81.

  37. Xing H., Jang, S., Kim, B., Piao, Z., Redona, E. and Koh, H.J. (2021). Evaluating Genotype × Environment Interactions of Yield Traits and Adaptability in Rice Cultivars Grown under Temperate, Subtropical and Tropical Environments. Agriculture. 11: 558.

  38. Yan, W. (2001). GGEbiplot-A Windows application for graphical analysis of multienvironment trial data and other types of two way data. Agronomy journal. 93(5): 1111-1118. 

  39. Yan, W., Kang, M.S., (2003). GGE Biplot Analysis, a Graphical Tool for Breeders, Geneticists and Agronomists. CRC Press, Washington, DC.

  40. Yan, W. and Tinker, N.A. (2006). Biplot analysis of multi-environment trial data: Principles and applications. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 86(3): 623-645.DOI :10.4141/P05-169.

  41. Yan, W. and Hunt, L.A. (2002). Biplot analysis of diallel data.Crop Science. 42(1): 21-30. DOI :10.2135/cropsci2002.0021.

  42. Yan, W., Kang, M.S., Ma, B., Woods, S. and Cornelius, P.L. (2007). GGE biplot vs. AMMI analysis of genotype by environment data. Crop Science. 47(2): 643-653. 

  43. Zobel, R.W., Wright, M.W., Gauch, H.G. (1988). Statistical analysis of a yield trial. Agronomy Journal. 80: 388-393.

  44. Zewdu, Z., Abebe, T., Mitiku, T., Worede, F., Dessie, A., Berie A., Atnaf, M., (2020). Performance evaluation and yield stability of upland rice (Oryza sativa L.) varieties in Ethiopia. Cogent Food and Agriculture. 6: 1-13.

Editorial Board

View all (0)