Performance stability for grain yield and genotypes by environment interaction in field pea genotypes in the highlands of Bale Southeastern Ethiopia
Keywords:AMMI, AMMI Stability Value (ASV), Genotypes Selection Index (GSI), Grain yield, Stability
Thirteen field pea genotypes were evaluated along with two standard checks, Harena and Tullushenen, and local cultivar for three consecutive years 2016 to 2018 main cropping season, bona, in the highlands of Bale, Southeastern Ethiopia. The study was conducted using randomized complete block design with four replication in order to identify high yielding, stable field pea genotypes with resistance or tolerant types of reaction for major diseases in the study areas. Genotypes X environment interaction and grain yield stability were analyzed and estimated using AMMI model analysis. The AMMI model analysis revealed significant variation for genotypes, environment, genotype x environment interaction at (P<0.01%.). The environment accounted for 82.99% of the total variation for yield whereas the genotypes accounted for 9.54% and the Genotypes x environment interaction explained for 7.46% of the total variation for grain yield. This indicates that the tested genotypes responded differently to the environment or the environment differently discriminate the genotypes. The first two AMMI components also showed significant variation and totally accounted for 55.45% which indicates at the model fit for this study. Based on the stability parameters like ASV and GSI used to discriminate the stable genotypes, G14, G8 G4, G16 and G3 had lower ASV and showed stable performance over the testing environments. In order to reduce the effect of GE interaction and to make selection of genotypes more precise and refined, both yield and stability of performance should be considered simultaneously. Accordingly, genotypes with code, G5, G4 and G14 had lower GSI indicating stable performance. But G5 had almost equal mean grain yield with the check (G14). Furthermore, this genotype besides its stable performance over the tested environment, it showed tolerant types of reaction for Powdery mildew, Downey mildew and Aschochtya blight. Therefore, G4, (ACC32003-2) was identified as candidate genotypes to be verified in the coming cropping season for possible release for the highlands of Bale and similar agro-ecologies.
Annicchiarico, P., 2002. Genotype x environment interactions - challenges and opportunities for plant breeding and cultivar recommendations. FAO plant production and protection Paper-174, Rome, Italy.
Basford, K.E., Cooper, M., 1998. Genotype-environmental interactions and some considerations of their implications for wheat breeding in Australia. Aust. J. Agr. Res., 49, 154-174.
Brink, M., Belay, G., 2006. Plant resources of tropical Africa: Cereals and pulses. PROTA Foundation/Backhuys Publishers/CTA.
Chaudhary, K.R., Wu, J., 2012. Stability analysis for yield and seed quality of soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merril] Across different environments in South Dakota. Conf. Appl. Stat. Agr., https://doi.org/10.4148/2475-7772.1033
Cockerham, C.C., 1963. Estimation of genetic variances. In: Statistical genetics and plant breeding (Hanson, W.D.,
Eberhart, S.A., Russell, W.A., 1966). Yield and stability of single cross and double cross maize hybrids. Crop. Sci., 6, 36-40.
Elzebroek, T., Wind, K., 2008. Guide to cultivated plants. CAB International, Oxfordshire, UK.
Falconer, D.S., Mackay, T.F.C., 1995. Introduction to quantitative genetics. Fourth Edition. Addison Wesley, Longman, Harlow, Essex, UK, 122-143.
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(4), 1791-1796.
Finlay, W.K., Wilkinson, G.N., 1963. The analysis of adaptation in plant breeding programmes. Aust. J. Agr. Res., 14, 742-754.
Gauch, H., 2006. Statistical analysis of yield trials by AMMI and GGE. Crop. Sci., 46(4), 1488-1500.
Gauch, H.G., 1993. Prediction, parsimony and noise: A model can be more accurate than a data used to build it because it amplifies hidden patterns and discards unwanted noise. Am. Sci., 81(5), 468-478.
Girma, M., Chemeda, D., Abeya, T., Dangachew, L., Negash, G., 2011. Genotype x Environment interaction for yield in field pea (Pisum sativum L.). East Afr. J. Sci., 5(1), 6-11.
Hartmann, H.T., Kofranek, A.M., Rubatzky, V.E., Flocker, W.J., 1988. Plant science: Growth, development and utilization of cultivated plants. 2nd Edn., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Career and Technology.
McKay, K., Schatz, B., Endres, E., 2003. Field pea production. In Production, 1166, 1-8.
Mohammadi, R., Abdulahi, A., Haghparast, R., Armion, M., 2007. Interpreting genotype environment interactions for durum wheat grain yields using non-parametric methods. Euphytica. 157: 239-251. Robertson, A., 1959. Experimental design in the evaluation of genetic parameters. Biometrics, 15, 219-226.
Schneider, K., Anderson, L., 2010. Yield gap and productivity potential in Ethiopian agriculture: Staple grains & pulses. EPAR Brief, No. 98, University of Washington, USA, 24p.
Tamene, T., Gemechu, K., Tadese, S., Mussa, J., Yeneneh, B., 2013. Genotype × Environment interaction and performance stability for grain yield in field pea (Pisum sativum L.) genotypes. Int. J. Plant Breed., 7(2), 116-123.
Yan, W., Rajcan, I., 2002. Biplots analysis of the test sites and trait relations of soybean in Ontario. Crop Sci., 42, 11-20.
Yan, W., Hunt, L.A., 2001. Interpretation of genotype × environment interaction for winter wheat yield in Ontario. Crop Sci., 41, 19-25.
Yayis, R., Agdew, B., Yasin, G., 2014. GGE and AMMI biplot analysis for field pea yield stability in SNNPR state, Ethiopia. Int. J. Sustain. Agr. Res., 1(1), 28-38.
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2020 Tadele Tadesse, Gashaw Sefera, Belay Asmare, Amanuel Tekalign
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.