The presence of significant G*E for quantitative traits such as yield can seriously limit the feasibility of selecting superior genotypes. Thus, the purpose of this study was to investigate grain yield stability and genotype X environment interaction for fifteen Ethiopian Mustard genotypes (Brassica carinata A. Braun) conducted in the highlands of Bale, Southeastern Ethiopia for three consecutive years (2018 to 2020) at two locations, Sinana and Agarfa. Randomized Complete Block Design with four replications was used. The combined analysis of variance for grain yield indicated highly significant interaction (P<0.01%) for genotypes, genotype X environment interaction, and environment. The analysis of variance for AMMI for grain yield revealed highly significant interaction for genotypes, genotypes X environment interaction, and environment. It was observed that 44.84% of the variation in grain yield was accounted by environment, 37.54% for genotypes by environments, and, 17.62% was for genotypes. The first and the second IPCA components with degree freedom of 34 was accounted for 67.64% of the interaction effect and revealed the two models were fit. Genotype G12, G11, G8, and G1 showed the lowest AMMI Stability Value (ASV) indicating stability. Furthermore, Genotypes G11, G12, G5, and G8 have the lowest GSI value indicating high stability. However, out of these genotypes, G11 showed a high mean grain yield with a yield advantage of 25.8% and showed the lowest GSI value compared to overall genotypes and the checks used in the study. Therefore, G11 was identified as a candidate genotype to be verified in the coming main season of 2022/23 for possible release for the highlands of bale zone, Southeastern Ethiopia, and similar agro-ecologies.
| Published in | Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (Volume 10, Issue 6) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.aff.20211006.12 |
| Page(s) | 214-219 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Science Publishing Group |
AMMI, Genotypes, Genotype by Environment Interaction, Grain Yield, Stability
| [1] | Alemayehu H, Becker H (2002). Genotypic diversity and patterns of variation in a germplasm material of Ethiopian mustard (Brassica carinata A. Braun). Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 49 (6): 573–58. |
| [2] | Baraki F, Y. Tsehaye, and F. Abay,(2014). AMMI analysis of genotype environment interaction and stability of sesame genotypes in Northern Ethiopia. Asian Journal of Plant Sciences, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 178–183, 2014. |
| [3] | Bocianowski J., Liersch A., and Nowosad K. (2020). Genotype by environment interaction for alkenyl glucosinolates content in winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.) using additive main effects and multiplicative interaction model. Elsevier, Current Plant Pathology Volume 21. |
| [4] | Cardone, M.; Mazzoncini, M.; Menini, S.; Rocco, V.; Senatore, A.; Seggiani, M.; Vitolo, S.(2003) Brassica carinata as an alternative oil crop for the production of biodiesel in Italy: Agronomic evaluation, fuel production by transesterification and characterization. Biomass Bioenergy, 25, 623–636. |
| [5] | Cotes MJ, Nustez EC, Martinez R, Estrada N (2002). Analyzing Genotype by Environment Interaction in potatoes using Yield- stability Index. Am. J. Potato Res. 79: 211-218. |
| [6] | Crossa, J., Fox P. N., Pfeiffer, W. H., Rajaram, S., and Gauch, H. G. 1991 AMMI adjustment for statistical analysis of an interactional wheat yield trial. Theor. App Gent, 81: 27-37. |
| [7] | Delacy IH, Cooper M, Basford KE (1996). Relationship among analytical methods used to study genotypes-by-environment interactions and evaluation of their impact on response to selection. |
| [8] | Deitos A, Arnhold E, Miranda GV (2006) Yield and combining ability of maize cultivars under different eco-geographic conditions. Crop Breeding and Applied Biotechnology 6: 222-227. |
| [9] | Esayas Tena, Frehiwot Goshu, Hussein Mohamad, Melaku Tesfa, Diribu Tesfaye & Abebech Seife. (2019) Genotype × environment interaction by AMMI and GGE-biplot analysis for sugar yield in three crop cycles of sugarcane (Saccharum officinirum L.) clones in Ethiopia, Cognet Food & Agriculture Volume 5, 2019 - Issue 1. |
| [10] | Farshadfar, E. N. Mahmodi, and A. Yaghotipoor (2011). AMMI stability value and simultaneous estimation of yield and yield stability in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), Australian Journal of Crop Science, vol. 5, no. 13, pp. 1837–1844, 2011. |
| [11] | Flores, F., M. T. Moreno, and J. I. Cubero. 1998. A comparison of the univariate and multivariate methods to analyze G E interaction. Field Crop Res. 56: 271-286. |
| [12] | Gauch, H. G. (1992). Statistical analysis of regional yield trials. Amsterdam: Elsevier. |
| [13] | Gauch, H. G. and R. W. Zobel. 1996. AMMI Analysis of Yield Trials. In: Genotype-by- Environment Interaction, Kang, M. S. and H. G. Gauch (Eds.). Boca Raton CRC, New York, USA. pp: 85-122 Kang, M. S. 1998. Using genotype-by-environment interaction for crop cultivar development. Adv. Agron., 35: Getinet, A.; Rakow, G.; Raney, J. P.; Downey, R. K. (1994). Development of zero erucic acid Ethiopian mustard through an interspecific cross with zero erucic acid Oriental mustard. Can. J. Plant Sci. 74, 793–795. |
| [14] | Gauch HG (2006). Statistical analysis of yield trials by AMMI and GGE. Crop Sci. J. 46 (4): 1488-1500. |
| [15] | Huhn M (1996). Nonparametric analysis of genotype X environment interactions by ranks. In: Kang, M. S., and H. G. Gauch (eds), Genotype -by-environment interaction. CRC press, New York pp. 235-271. |
| [16] | Kang, M. S., and H. G. Gauch (eds) 91998). Genotype-by-environment interaction. CRC press, New York pp. 51-84. |
| [17] | Kenneth W., Marshall D. Lindheimer, (2009). In Chesley's Hypertensive Disorders in Pregnancy (Third Edition), 200). Chapter 4 - Genetic Factors in the Etiology of Preeclampsia/Eclampsia. |
| [18] | Kim, J, Taeheon Lee, Hyun-Jeong Lee and Heebal Kim, 2014. Genotype-environment interactions for quantitative traits in Korea Associated Resource (KARE) cohorts. Genetics 15: 18, http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/15/18. |
| [19] | Manrique, K. and Hermann, M. (2002). Comparative study to determine stable performance in Sweet potato. Acta Hortic. 583, 87-94. |
| [20] | Mohammad J., Ashwani K. and S. K. Gupta SK. (2018). Phenotypic Stability for Yield and Some Quality Traits in Brassica juncea L. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci 7 (2): 479-485. |
| [21] | Prado, E. E., D. M. Hiromoto, V. P. C. Godinho, M. M. Utumi and A. R. Ramalho. 2001. Adaptabilidade e estabilidade de cultivares de soja em cinco épocas de plantio no cerrado de Rondônia. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 36: 625-635. |
| [22] | Purchase, J. L., Hatting H., and Vandenventer, C. S. 2000. Genotype x environment interaction of winter wheat in South Africa: II. Stability analysis of yield performance. South Afr J Plant Soil, 17: 101-107. |
| [23] | Schippers RR (2002). African Indigenous vegetables, An Overview of the Cultivated Species 2002. Revised version in CD – ROM. Natural Resources International Limited, Aylesford, UK. |
| [24] | Tadele Tadesse, Gashaw Sefera and Amanuel Tekalig (2018). Genotypes × Environment interaction analysis for Ethiopian mustard (Brassica carinata L.) genotypes using AMMI model. Journal of Plant Breeding and Crop Science Vol. 10 (4), pp. 86-92. |
| [25] | Tarakanovas P., and Ruzgas V. (2006). Additive main effect and multiplicative interaction analysis of grain yield of wheat varieties in Lithuania. Agronomy Research 4 (1), 91–98. |
| [26] | Tumuhimbise, R., R. Melis, P. Shanahan, and R. Kawuki, “Genotype environment interaction effects on early fresh storage root yield and related traits in cassava,” The Crop Journal, vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 329–337, 2014. |
| [27] | Yan W, Tinker NA (2006). Biplot analysis of multi-environment trial data: Principles and applications. Can. J. Plant Sci. 86 (3): 623-645. |
APA Style
Tadele Tadesse, Amanuel Tekalign, Belay Asmare. (2021). Grain Yield Stability of Ethiopian Mustard (Brassica carinata A. Braun) Genotypes Using AMMI Analysis in the Highlands of Bale, Southeastern Ethiopia. Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 10(6), 214-219. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aff.20211006.12
ACS Style
Tadele Tadesse; Amanuel Tekalign; Belay Asmare. Grain Yield Stability of Ethiopian Mustard (Brassica carinata A. Braun) Genotypes Using AMMI Analysis in the Highlands of Bale, Southeastern Ethiopia. Agric. For. Fish. 2021, 10(6), 214-219. doi: 10.11648/j.aff.20211006.12
AMA Style
Tadele Tadesse, Amanuel Tekalign, Belay Asmare. Grain Yield Stability of Ethiopian Mustard (Brassica carinata A. Braun) Genotypes Using AMMI Analysis in the Highlands of Bale, Southeastern Ethiopia. Agric For Fish. 2021;10(6):214-219. doi: 10.11648/j.aff.20211006.12
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.aff.20211006.12,
author = {Tadele Tadesse and Amanuel Tekalign and Belay Asmare},
title = {Grain Yield Stability of Ethiopian Mustard (Brassica carinata A. Braun) Genotypes Using AMMI Analysis in the Highlands of Bale, Southeastern Ethiopia},
journal = {Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries},
volume = {10},
number = {6},
pages = {214-219},
doi = {10.11648/j.aff.20211006.12},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aff.20211006.12},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.aff.20211006.12},
abstract = {The presence of significant G*E for quantitative traits such as yield can seriously limit the feasibility of selecting superior genotypes. Thus, the purpose of this study was to investigate grain yield stability and genotype X environment interaction for fifteen Ethiopian Mustard genotypes (Brassica carinata A. Braun) conducted in the highlands of Bale, Southeastern Ethiopia for three consecutive years (2018 to 2020) at two locations, Sinana and Agarfa. Randomized Complete Block Design with four replications was used. The combined analysis of variance for grain yield indicated highly significant interaction (P<0.01%) for genotypes, genotype X environment interaction, and environment. The analysis of variance for AMMI for grain yield revealed highly significant interaction for genotypes, genotypes X environment interaction, and environment. It was observed that 44.84% of the variation in grain yield was accounted by environment, 37.54% for genotypes by environments, and, 17.62% was for genotypes. The first and the second IPCA components with degree freedom of 34 was accounted for 67.64% of the interaction effect and revealed the two models were fit. Genotype G12, G11, G8, and G1 showed the lowest AMMI Stability Value (ASV) indicating stability. Furthermore, Genotypes G11, G12, G5, and G8 have the lowest GSI value indicating high stability. However, out of these genotypes, G11 showed a high mean grain yield with a yield advantage of 25.8% and showed the lowest GSI value compared to overall genotypes and the checks used in the study. Therefore, G11 was identified as a candidate genotype to be verified in the coming main season of 2022/23 for possible release for the highlands of bale zone, Southeastern Ethiopia, and similar agro-ecologies.},
year = {2021}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Grain Yield Stability of Ethiopian Mustard (Brassica carinata A. Braun) Genotypes Using AMMI Analysis in the Highlands of Bale, Southeastern Ethiopia AU - Tadele Tadesse AU - Amanuel Tekalign AU - Belay Asmare Y1 - 2021/11/17 PY - 2021 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aff.20211006.12 DO - 10.11648/j.aff.20211006.12 T2 - Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries JF - Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries JO - Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries SP - 214 EP - 219 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2328-5648 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aff.20211006.12 AB - The presence of significant G*E for quantitative traits such as yield can seriously limit the feasibility of selecting superior genotypes. Thus, the purpose of this study was to investigate grain yield stability and genotype X environment interaction for fifteen Ethiopian Mustard genotypes (Brassica carinata A. Braun) conducted in the highlands of Bale, Southeastern Ethiopia for three consecutive years (2018 to 2020) at two locations, Sinana and Agarfa. Randomized Complete Block Design with four replications was used. The combined analysis of variance for grain yield indicated highly significant interaction (P<0.01%) for genotypes, genotype X environment interaction, and environment. The analysis of variance for AMMI for grain yield revealed highly significant interaction for genotypes, genotypes X environment interaction, and environment. It was observed that 44.84% of the variation in grain yield was accounted by environment, 37.54% for genotypes by environments, and, 17.62% was for genotypes. The first and the second IPCA components with degree freedom of 34 was accounted for 67.64% of the interaction effect and revealed the two models were fit. Genotype G12, G11, G8, and G1 showed the lowest AMMI Stability Value (ASV) indicating stability. Furthermore, Genotypes G11, G12, G5, and G8 have the lowest GSI value indicating high stability. However, out of these genotypes, G11 showed a high mean grain yield with a yield advantage of 25.8% and showed the lowest GSI value compared to overall genotypes and the checks used in the study. Therefore, G11 was identified as a candidate genotype to be verified in the coming main season of 2022/23 for possible release for the highlands of bale zone, Southeastern Ethiopia, and similar agro-ecologies. VL - 10 IS - 6 ER -
Email: