Graphical Analysis of Multi-Environment Trials for Barley Yield Using AMMI and GGE-Biplot Under Rain-Fed Conditions

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 University of Imam Khomeini, Qazvin, Iran

2 Agricultural Research Institute, Gachsaran, Iran

3 Shahed University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

The AMMI and SREG GGE   are among the models that effectively capture the additive and multiplicative components of genotype × environment interaction (GEI) and provide meaningful interpretation of multi-environment trials’ data set in the breeding programs. The objective of this study was to assess the effect of GEI on grain yield of barely advanced lines and exploit the positive GEI effect using AMMI and SREG GGE biplot analysis. Therefore, 18 lines were evaluated at four research stations (Gorgan, Mogan, Lorestan and Gachsaran) of Dryland Agricultural Research Institute (DARI), located in the semi-warm regions in Iran, in 2004, 2005 and 2006 cropping seasons under rain-fed conditions. Analysis of variance showed that grain yield variation due to environments, genotypes and GEI were highly significant (p<0.01), which accounted for 70.4%, 6.8% and 22.8% of treatment combination sum of squares, respectively. To determine the effects of GEI on yields, the data were subjected to AMMI and GGE biplot analysis. The first four AMMI model terms were highly significant (p<0.01) and of which the first two terms explained 48% of the GEI. There were two mega-environments according to the SREG GGE model. The best genotype in one location was not always the best in other test locations. According to AMMI1 biplot, the ideal-genotype biplot and by visualizing the mean yield and stability of the genotypes, lines G2 and G11 were better than all other lines across environments. G11 was the ideal genotype to plant in Gachsaran and Lorestan and G2 was the best for Gorgon and Mogan.
Keywords:
 

Keywords


Introduction

Multi-environment yield trials (MEYTs) are essential because of the presence of genotype × environment (GE) interactions. The GE interaction that results from the differential responses of genotypes across a range of environments reduces the correlation between phenotypic and genotypic values and complicates the selection of the best genotypes (Ebdon and Gauch 2002). Plant breeding programs should take GE interaction into consideration as well as the estimate of its magnitude, relative to the magnitude of genotype and environment effects, which affects grain yield. Furthermore, the identification of genotypes that yield best across a number of environments would be useful to breeders and producers. Therefore, experimental research needs to be carried out over multiple environments in order to identify and analyze the major factors that are responsible for genotype adaptation (De Lacy et al. 1996). For the accurate analysis of MEYTs, the additive main effects and multiplicative interaction (AMMI) model is a valuable tool due to the accuracy that it provides in GE interaction studies (Gauch 2006; Li et al. 2006). AMMI analysis combines the additive parameters of traditional ANOVA with multiplicative parameters of PCA (principal component analysis). It is very useful in visualizing multi-environment data and gaining accuracy (Gauch 2006). Another method that has gained importance in investigating the role of genotype, environment and GE interaction effects in MEYTs is the genotype main effects plus genotype × environment interaction (GGE) biplot. Using a site regression model (SREG), Yan (2001) combined  G and GE and provided to the agricultural research community an excellent scientific method of visual analysis, called ‘GGE biplot analysis’ and developed a sophisticated Windows-based software called ‘GGEbiplot’ to summarize the G and GE and to address the issue of cultivar recommendation in multi-environment trials. This methodology uses a biplot to show the factors (G and GE) that are important in genotype evaluation as well as sources of variation in GE interaction (Yan et al. 2000, 2001). The GGE biplot emphasizes two concepts. First, although the measured yield is the combined effect of G, E and GE interaction, only G and GE interaction are relevant to, and must be considered simultaneously in genotype evaluation, hence the term GGE. Second, the biplot technique is employed to approximate and display the GGE of a MEYT, hence the term GGE biplot. This GGE-biplot is constructed by the first two principal components (PC1 and PC2) derived from subjecting environment centered yield data to singular value decomposition. It clearly shows which genotype won in which environments, and thus facilitates mega-environments (MEs) identification (Yan et al. 2000). The AMMI and GGE biplot models are defined as powerful tools for effective analysis and interpretation of multi-environment data structure in breeding programs (Yan et al. 2000; Ebdon and Gauch 2002; Samonte et al. 2005). The AMMI and GGE biplot have frequently been used for explaining GE interaction and to identify high yielding and adapted cultivars. Also the effectiveness of this methods in analyzing MEYTs data have been well documented (Yan et al. 2000, 2001; Kaya et al. 2002; Yan and Kang 2002; Morris et al. 2004; Yan and Tinker 2005; Samonte et al. 2005; Kang et al. 2006; Dehghani et al. 2006; Gauch 2006; Fan et al. 2007; Setimela et al. 2007; Mohammadi et al. 2007; Yan et al. 2007; Sabaghnia et al. 2008).

Accordingly, the aim of this study was (i) to apply AMMI and GGE biplot models to evaluate the significance and magnitude of GE interaction effect on grain yield of 18 advanced lines of barely tested across 12 rain-fed environments and (ii) to identify the best performing lines for selection environments by using and comparing the AMMI and GGE biplot methods.

 

Material and Methods

This study was carried out to determine the yield performances of 18 advanced lines of barely across four rain-fed locations undertaken in Mogan, Gachsaran, Gorgan and Lorestan during the 2004, 2005 and 2006 cropping seasons under non-irrigated conditions. These multi-environment yield trials were conducted in four research stations of Dryland Agricultural Research Institute (DARI), located in the semi-warm regions of Iran. These sites widely differ in terms of geographic position, altitude and rainfall (Table 1). The code of 18 lines and their pedigrees are given in Table 2. The experimental layout was a randomized complete block design with four replications at each site and year. Sowing was done in 1.05 m × 7.03 m plots, consisting of 6 rows with 17.5 cm distance between the rows. The central four rows were harvested for grain yield measurement in order to exclude border effects. Following harvest, grain yield was determined for each line in each test environment, and mean yield averages were computed in accordance with the experimental design. Combinations of three years and four locations were treated as 12 environments. The SAS software was used to partition yield variation into E, G and GE interaction. The grain yield data were subjected to AMMI and GGE biplot analyses. The GGEbiplot software (Yan 2001) was used to generate graphs showing (i) “which-won-where” pattern, (ii) ranking of cultivars on the basis of yield and stability, (iii) ranking of environments on the basis of discriminating ability and representativeness, (iv) environment vectors, and (v) comparing relative genotype performance in different locations (Yan and Kang 2003).

 

 

 

Table 1. Site description and rainfall data of experimental sites in Iran where the

experiments were conducted

Station

Longitude (E)  Latitude (N)

Altitude (m)

Rainfall (mm)

2004

2005

2006

Gachsaran

50.5

30.17

710

515.2

560.7

511.2

Gorgan

37.16

55.12

45

539.4

377.9

441.7

Lorastan

48.28

33.39

1125

477.1

438.3

554.1

Mogan

47.88

39.39

100

254.2

182.8

143.7

 

 

 

Table 2. Code and pedigree of 18 barely advanced lines used in the study

Code

Pedigree

G1

Alger/Ceres//Sls/3/ER/Apm/4/Wi2197/Mazurkal ICB92-0944-OAP-OAP(10-B-Moghan-2003)

G2

Moroco9-75/Wi2291/Wi2269(13-B-Moghan-2003)

G3

Rhn-03//Lignee 527/As45 CB93-0815-OAP-5AP-OAP-OAP(2-B-Moghan-2003)

G4

Wi2291/TipperICB93-1156-OAP-22AP-OAP-OAP(6-B-Moghan-2003)

G5

Hyb 85-6//As46/Aths×2 ICB91-0736-OAP-OAP-OAP(12-B-Moghan-2003)

G6

Arizona5968/Aths//Avt/Attiki(16-B-Moghan-2003)

G7

BKF/Maguelone1604/3/Apro//SV(14-B-Moghan-2003)

G8

Alanda/5/Aths/4/Pro/Toli//Cer×2/Toli/3/5106/6/Avt/. -8G -3 G(7-B-Gachsaran-2003)

G9

Bda/Cr. 115/Pro/Bc/3/Api/Cm67/4/ Giza121/... -9G -2 G(9-B-Gachsaran-2003)

G10

Emir/Nacta//As907/3/Avt_(9-9)ACSAD-1290-6AP-OTR-OAP-6AP-OAP-OAP(11-BNYT-Gachsaran-2003)

G11

Lth/3/Nopal//Prol/11012-2/4/Kabaa-03ICB94-0498-OAP-3AP-OAP-OAP(8-BNYT-Gachsaran-2003)

G12

Himalaya-12/Plaisant    ICBH95-0630-OAP-OAP-16AP(6-BNYT-Gachsaran-2003)

G13

MoB1337/Wi2291//Bonita//Weeah/3/AtahualpaICB98-0563(5-BNYT-Gachsaran-2003)

G14

Weeah11/wi2291/Bgs/3/ER/Apm//Ac253  ICB94-0707-OAP-OAP(7-B-Gonbad-2003)

G15

26216/4/Arar/3/Mari/Aths×2//M-ATT-73-337-1ICB94-0517-37AP-OAP(11-B-Gonbad-2003)

G16

MK1272//Manker/Arig8/3/AlandaICB93-0448-OAP-6AP-OAP(12-Bgonbad-2003)

G17

LB

G18

IZEH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Results and Discussion

Analysis of variance

The analysis of variance and AMMI for grain yield of 18 advanced lines of barely tested across 12 environments is presented in Table 3. The ANOVA for grain yield showed that mean squares of environments, genotypes and genotype × environment interaction (GEI) were highly significant (p<0.01) which accounted for 70.4%, 6.8% and 22.8% of model sum of squares (SS), respectively (Table 3). This case, along with a highly significant GEI, indicated the need for the  stability analysis. The genotype and the environment means for each location and each genotype are given in Table 4. The environment was the main cause of variations in grain yield, explaining 70.4% of the model (G + E+ GEI) SS (Table 3). A large yield variation explained by environments indicated that the environments were diverse, because large differences among environmental means caused most of the variation in grain yield. The environment yield means (averaged across genotypes) varied from 3412 kgha-1 at Gorgan in 2005 (Gor5) to 4866 kgha-1 at Gachsaran in 2005 (Gac5) (Table 4). Only the small portion, 6.8% of the total SS, was attributed to genotypic effects. The yields of the lines (averaged across environments) varied from 3290 kgha-1 for G6 to 4256 kgha-1 for G1 (Table 4). GEI significantly explained 22.8% of model variation in grain yield. The magnitude of the GEI sum of squares was about 3.5 times larger than that for genotypes. It is very common for MEYTs data to embody a mixture of crossover and non-crossover types of GEI. Gauch and Zobel (1997) reported that E accounts for about 80% of the total variation, while G and GE each account for about 10% in normal MEYTs. More pronounced influence of environment on the grain yield compared to the genotype or the GEI effects has been documented in many crops (Akcura et al. 2005).  Similar results were found in our study since the E effect was about 2.5 times higher than G + GE effects. On the other hand, the differential rankings of genotypes observed across test environments revealed a plausible existence of crossover GEI.

Analysis of genotype by environment interaction is vital for breeders in order to design the dissemination strategies for new varieties. It is important to identify cultivars with specific and general adaptation. Precise recommendation of lines for general and specific adaptation requires clear understanding of the real pattern of genotype by environment interaction. Thus, GE sum of squares was partitioned into “noise” and “real structure” following the procedure by Gauch and Zobel (1997). This computation ignores irrelevant environmental effects and much interaction noise while focusing mainly on the relevant genotype and real interaction effects (Campbell and Jones 2005). The AMMI analysis partitioned the SS of GEI into four significant interaction principal components axes (IPCA) (Table 3). The first principal axis (AMMI1) captured 28% of the SS GEI, the second 20%, the third 17% and the fourth 11%. Accordingly, the GEI contained 71357.7 (pooled error mean square) × 187 (degree of freedom for GEI) = 13343889.9 noise SS (32.6%) and 40862400 - 13343889.9 = 27518510.1 pattern SS (67.3%). This contribution of pattern SS (67.3%) was larger than that retained by the first two multiplicative terms that together accounted for 48% of the GEI sum of squares. Moreover, the first two terms had SS greater than that of genotypes and were highly significant (p<0.01). This suggested that the AMMI model with the first and second multiplicative terms was adequate for cross-validation of the yield variation explained by GEI in the present data set since it excludes most of its actual noise. Admassu et al. (2008) proposed that two interactions PCA for AMMI model was sufficient for the predictive model. Other interaction PCA captured mostly non-predictive random variation (noise) and did not fit to predict validation observations. Therefore, the approximation of factual interaction pattern of the 18 barely advanced lines with 12 environments was best cross-validated with the first two multiplicative terms of genotypes and environments that easily was visualized with the aid of a biplot.

 

 

Table 3.  AMMI analysis of variance and partitioning of the sum of squares (SS) for

grain yield (kgha-1) of 18 barely advanced lines evaluated across 12 environments

Source of variation

df

SS

MS

Explained % of model & GEI SSa

Model

215

179474000

834762.8

 

Genotypes (G)

17

12241600

720094**

6.8

Environments (E)

11

126370000

11488181**

70.4

GEI

187

40862400

218515**

22.8

AMMI1

27

11303800

418659**

28

AMMI2

25

8098030

323921**

20

AMMI3

23

7064300

307143**

17

AMMI4

21

4559200

217105**

11

GE Residual

91

9837030

108099.2ns

24

Pooled error

612

43670913.2

71357.7

 

a: % of model sum of squares for genotypes, environments and GEI; % (underlined numbers) of GEI sum of squares for IPCAs.

**: Significant at the 0.01 probability level; ns: non-significant; df: degree of freedom; SS: sum of squares; MS: mean   squares.

 

 

Table 4. Mean grain yield (kgha-1) of 18 barely advanced lines across 12 environments

(combination of four locations and three years) in Iran

Environment

Genotype

Gor4

Mog4

Lor4

Gac4

Gor5

Mog5

Lor5

Gac5

Gor6

Mog6

Lor6

Gac6

Mean

G1

4102

3790

4962

4104

4094

5421

4135

5775

3602

1417

4881

4791

4256

G2

4000

4557

4490

4367

3817

5366

4027

5639

3196

2247

3465

3993

4097

G3

3577

4018

3969

4055

3700

4370

4298

4490

3090

2276

3235

5263

3862

G4

3315

4678

4692

3394

3412

4683

4460

4561

2490

1485

4152

4471

3816

G5

3517

4712

4938

3935

3363

4999

4362

5035

3229

1514

3608

4467

3973

G6

3221

3933

4390

2809

2802

3621

3540

3951

2860

1455

3394

3498

3290

G7

2444

4349

3967

4130

3367

4820

4102

5280

2762

3072

3960

3698

3912

G8

3188

3581

3831

3796

3141

4074

3862

3834

3817

1753

3633

4370

3573

G9

3390

5550

4858

4228

3367

4975

4681

4292

4165

2061

3185

3108

3988

G10

3225

3866

3171

4502

2790

3813

4267

5065

2890

2504

2646

4029

3564

G11

4223

4206

4529

3984

3722

4819

4279

4693

4085

2158

4712

4057

4122

G12

3302

3848

4942

4282

2965

4735

4102

5278

3617

2063

4629

4288

4004

G13

3644

3760

4150

3529

3502

4490

3996

5222

4135

1804

3660

4622

3876

G14

3640

3948

4877

4509

3449

5300

4238

5138

3983

1591

3929

5868

4206

G15

3669

3950

5271

3620

3541

4567

3960

5639

3619

1290

3823

4117

3922

G16

4160

4420

4031

4041

3637

4702

3944

4908

3367

1522

2394

4680

3817

G17

3806

4646

3379

3091

3381

5519

4298

4190

3773

1216

2406

3602

3610

G18

3600

4544

4075

4351

3359

5004

4415

4607

3248

1773

3800

4550

3944

mean

3612

4242

4362

3930

3412

4738

4165

4866

3440

1845

3640

4304

3880

Underlined values are the maximum yield at each test environment.

Environment is designated as locations first letters (Gorgan, Mogan, Lorestan and Gachsaran) followed by 4, 5 or 6 (i.e. 2004,

2005 and 2006) to indicate year.

 

 

 

 

 

AMMI biplot analysis

To visualize the lines’ performance in relation to stability, main effects (mean performance) was plotted against IPCA1 (Figure 1). Displacement along the vertical axis indicated interaction differences between lines and between environments, and displacement along the horizontal axis indicated difference in line and environment main effects. This biplot (Figure 1) based on AMMI1 model explained treatments SS, with 6.82% due to Genotype SS, 70.41% due to Environment SS, and 6.3% due to PC1 SS. Thus, it is very informative since it explains 83.5 % of the treatment SS. The lines with PC1 scores close to zero expressed general adaptation whereas the larger scores depicted more specific adaptation to environments with PC1 scores of the same sign (Ebdon and Gauch 2002). Therefore, a line such as G9 with larger PC1 score was better adapted to Mogan in 2004 with larger PC1 score with the same sign (Figure 1). In contrast, line G1, was adapted to Lorestan in 2004 and Gachsaran in 2006 with larger negative PC1 scores. The relative magnitude and direction of lines along the abscissa and ordinate axis in biplot is important to understand the response pattern of genotypes across environments. The best genotype should combine high yield and stable performance across range of production environments. Therefore, the four high yielding (averaged over environments) lines G1, G14, G11 and G2 (with 4256, 4206, 4122 and 4097 kgh-1, respectively) can best judged based on their stability. G2 and G11 that combined low absolute PC1 score and high yield would be best overall winners with relatively less variable yield across environments. Gorgan had relatively smaller variation in the interaction (PC1 score) from year to year while year differences were very high for Lorestan, Mogan and Gachsaran. This underlines the importance of evaluating multi-location yield trials over different seasons. Also, Figure 1 indicated that the relative ranking of genotypes were stable at Gorgan than other locations.

 

 


Figure 1. AMMI1 biplot for IPCA1 vs main effect, to show genotype performance in relation

to stability of 18 barely advanced lines evaluated across 12 environments 

 

 

Winning genotype and mega-environment

The Figure 2 polygon is a summary of the GEI pattern of the 18 barely lines with 12 environments. According to this analysis, ideal cultivars are those that should have large PC1 scores (high mean yield) and small (absolute) PC2 scores (high stability). Also, ideal test environments should have large PC1 scores (more power to discriminate genotypes in terms of the genotypic main effect) and small (absolute) PC2 scores (more representative of the overall environments) (Yan et al. 2000). This polygon is formed by connecting the lines that are further away from the biplot origin in a way that all other lines are contained in the polygon. With the present data set, the lines G1, G2, G9, G17, G10, G6 and G8 expressed a highly interactive behavior. The genotypes at vertex are the winners in the sites included in that sector. Six rays in Figure 2 divided the biplot into six sectors and the environments fall into two of them. Three (or four) environments, Mogan2004, Mogan2005 (probably also Mogan2006) and Lorestan 2005, fell into the first sector and the vertex line for this sector was G9. Therefore, Mogan in all years clustered in one sector indicating repeatable performance of the lines observed in this location and it could be considered as separate mega-environment for barely variety evaluation and recommendation. The rest of environments (Gorgan in three years, Gachsaran in three years and Lorestan on two years) fell into the second sector. The vertex line for this sector was the G1. The length of an environmental vector is an estimation of discriminating power of the environment (Yan et al. 2007). Test environments with longer vectors (Lor6 in Figure 2) are more discriminating of the genotypes. A test environment close to the biplot origin (Mog6 and Lor5 in Figure 2) means that it exhibited low interaction and relative performance of all genotypes is similar. Therefore, Mog6 and Lor5 provided little or no information about the genotype differences. On the hand, the nearly additive behavior of Mogan in 2006 indicated that genotypic yield in that environment was highly correlated with the overall genotypic means across environments. Gorgan was relatively closer to biplot origin in all years and hence less interactive location and could be a suitable location for the selection of genotypes with average adaptation.

 

Visualizing the mean yield and stability of the genotypes

The mean yield and stability of genotypes are evaluated by defining an average tester coordinate (ATC) method (Yan 2001). In this method, the average environment is indicated by a circle and shows the positive end of the ATC x axis (Figure 3). A line known as the average environment axis and serves as the abscissa of the AEC is then drawn to pass through this average environment and the biplot origin. The ordinate of the AEC is the line that passes through the origin and is perpendicular to the AEC abscissa (Figure 3). Unlike the AEC abscissa, which has one direction, with the arrow pointing to greater genotype main effect, the AEC ordinate is indicated by double arrows, and either direction away from the biplot origin  indicates   greater  GEI  effect  and  lower

 

 

 

Figure 2. Polygon views of the GGE biplot based on symmetrical scaling for which won

where pattern for genotypes and environments.

 

 

 

stability. The AEC ordinate separates genotypes with below-average means from those with above-average means. Furthermore, the average yield of genotypes is approximated by the projections of their markers to the AEC abscissa. For this study, lines with above-average means (i.e. G1, G14, G2, G11, G5, G15, G12, G9 and G18) were selected, whereas the rest (i.e. G4, G7, G13, G16, G3, G17, G8 and G10) were discarded. On the other hand, a longer projection to the AEC ordinate, regardless of the direction, represents a greater GEI of a genotype, which means it is more variable and less stable across environments or vice versa. For instance, lines G5, G18, G11 and G2 were more stable as well as high yielding. Conversely, G9, G1, G12, G14 and G15 were more variable, but high yielding. The requirement for the use of SREG based GGE biplots in the identification of superior genotypes is to facilitate the identification of such genotypes (Crossa et al. 2002).

 

Ideal genotype and ideal environment

An ideal genotype is defined as one that is the highest yielding across test environments and is absolutely stable in performance (Yan and Kang 2003). Although such an ideal genotype may not exist in reality, it can be used as a reference for genotype evaluation. A genotype is more desirable if it is located closer to the ideal genotype. Thus, using the ideal genotype as the center, concentric circles were drawn to help visualize the distance between each genotype and the ideal genotype. When an “ideal” cultivar view was drawn (Figure 4), the lines G2, G11 and G1 were the closest to the ideal cultivar (center circle) and may be regarded as desirable genotypes, followed by G14, G5 and G15 as a group.
Ranking of other genotypes as ideal was G18 > G12 > G7 > G4 > G13 > G16 > G9 > G3 > G17> G8 > G10 > G6. On the other hand, the lower yielding genotypes i.e. G7, G4, G13, G16, G9, G3, G17, G8, G10 and G6, are unfavorable because they are far away from the ideal genotype. The relative contributions of stability and grain yield to the identification of desirable genotype found in this study using the ideal genotype procedure of the GGEbiplot are similar to those found in other crop stability studies such as rice (Samonte et al. 2005), wheat (Kaya et al. 2006), barley (Dehghani et al. 2006) and maize (Fan et al. 2007).

 

 

 

Figure 3.  GGE biplot obtained from sites regression (SREG) analysis showing mean and

stability of 18 barely genotypes for yield and GEI.

 

 

Figure 4. Comparison of 18 barely advanced lines against the ‘ideal’ genotype for grain

yield and stability of performance across environments

 

 

An ideal environment should have more power to discriminate genotypes in terms of the genotypic main effect (large PC1 scores) and at the same time more representative of the overall environments (small absolute PC2 scores). Although such an ideal environment may not exist in reality, it can be used as a reference for genotype selection in the MEYTs. An environment is more desirable if it is located closer to the ideal environment. Thus, using the ideal environment as the center, concentric circles were drawn to help visualize the distance between each environment and the ideal environment (Yan et al. 2000). In Figure 5, the environments are ranked based on both discriminating ability and representativeness. Thus, LOR4 was a relatively favorable test environment, followed by GAC5, with the highest yield, as a group. Overall, the poorest test environments relative to the ideal environment were GAC6, LOR5, MOG4 and MOG6.

 

 

 

Figure 5. Comparison of 12 test environments against the ‘ideal’ environment based on

discriminating ability and representativeness

 

 

Comparing performance of two genotypes at all environments

The performance of the top two high yielding and stable lines (G2 and G11) was compared in GGE biplot by a straight line connecting the markers of the two genotypes and a broken perpendicular line passing the plot origin (Figure 6). This perpendicular line divided the environments into two groups; each of these genotypes would yield better than the other at environments with markers on its side of the perpendicular, and vice versa (Yan et al. 2000). Thus, G11 would yield better than G2 at GAC in all years (2004, 2005 and 2006) and at LOR in 2004 and 2006, whereas G2 would yield better than G11 at GOR in all years (2004, 2005 and 2006), MOG in all years (2004, 2005 and 2006) and LOR in 2005. Therefore, G11 is the ideal genotype for planting in Gachsaran and Lorestan and G2 is the best for Gorgan and Mogan.

 

 

 

Figure 6. GGE biplot obtained from site regression (SREG) analysis that clusters the environments into those where G2 out-yields G11 (below the broken line) and where G11 out-yields G2 (above the broken line)

 

 

Conclusion

The AMMI and GGE biplot analyses revealed two highly adapted lines to several environments (G11 had the highest yield and durability in Gacsaran and Lorestan, followed by G2, with the highest yield and durability in Gorgan and Mogan). Thus, the lines G11 and G2 can be proposed for planting by the farmers under rain-fed conditions.  Also, it was detected that only the test environments LOR4 and GAC5 can be sufficient for deciding about which genotypes are recommended. This information should be useful for plant breeders in performance trials by targeting appropriate barely genotypes to different regions and by identifying the best test environments to use economically limited resources such as time and money. The GGE biplot aided in comparison of the performance of lines at different environments, determination of the relative performance of lines at a specific environment and identification of lines suitable for groups of environments. In addition, it was concluded that there was no difference between the AMMI and GGE biplot analyses in evaluation of barely advanced lines under study and both methods were successful in determining suitable barely genotypes and locations under Iranian rain-fed climate conditions.

 

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank and to acknowledge Professor W. Yan for development of the GGE biplot methodology in MET data and GGEbiplot software (www.ggebiplot.com ) and for his valuable insights.

 
 
References
Admassu S, Nigussie M and Zelleke H, 2008. Genotype-environment interaction and stability analysis for grain yield of maize (Zea mays L.) in Ethiopia. Asian J Plant Sci 7: 163-169.
Akcura M, Kaya Y and Taner S, 2005. Genotype-environment interaction and phenotypic stability analysis for grain yield of durum wheat in the Central Anatolian Region. Turk J Agric29: 369-375.
Campbell BT and Jones MA, 2005. Assessment of genotype×environment interactions for yield and fiber quality in cotton performance trials. Euphytica 144: 69-78.
Crossa J, Cornelius PL and Yan W, 2002. Biplots of linear-bilinear models for studying crossover genotype×environment interaction. Crop Sci 42: 619-633.
Dehghani H, Ebadi A and Yousefi A, 2006. Biplot analysis of genotype by environment interaction for barley yield in Iran. Agron J  98: 388-393.
DeLacy IH, Basford KE, Cooper M, Bull JK and McLaren CG, 1996. Analysis of  multi-environmental trials, a historical perspective. Pp. 39-124. In: Cooper M and Hammer GL (Eds). Plant Adaptation and Crop Improvement. CABI, Wallingford, UK.
Ebdon JS and Gauch HG, 2002. Additive main effect and multiplicative interaction analysis of national turfgrass performance trials: I. Interpretation of genotype×environment interaction. Crop Sci 42: 489-496.
Fan XM, Kang MS, Chen H, Zhang Y, Tan J and Xu C, 2007. Yield stability of maize hybrids evaluated in multi-environment trials in Yunnan, China. Agron J  99: 220-228.
Gauch HG, 2006. Statistical analysis of yield trials by AMMI and GGE. Crop Sci 46: 1488-1500.
Gauch GH and Zobel RW, 1997. Interpreting mega-environments and targeting genotypes. Crop Sci 37: 311-326.
Kaya Y, Akcura M and Taner S, 2006. GGE-biplot analysis of multi-environment yield trials in bread wheat. Turk J Agric For 30: 325-337.
Kaya Y, Palta C and Taner S, 2002. Additive main effects and multiplicative interactions analysis of yield performance in bread wheat genotypes across environments. Turk J Agric For 26: 275-279.
Li W, Yan ZH, Wei YM, Lan XJ and Zheng YL, 2006. Evaluation of genotype×environment interactions in Chinese Spring wheat by the AMMI model, correlation and path analysis. J Agron Crop Sci 192: 221-227.
Mohammadi R, Abdulahi A, Haghparast R and Armioon M, 2007. Interpreting genotype×environment interactions for durum wheat grain yields using nonparametric methods. Euphytica 157: 239-251.
Morris CF, Campbell KG and King GE, 2004. Characterization of the end-use quality of soft wheat cultivars from the eastern and western US germplasm pools. Plant Genet Resour 2: 59-69.
Sabaghnia N, Dehghani H and Sabaghpour SH, 2008. Graphic analysis of genotype by environment interaction for lentil yield in Iran. Agron J 100: 760-764.
Samonte SOPB, Wilson LT, McClung AM and Medley JC, 2005. Targeting cultivars onto rice growing environments using AMMI and SREG GGE biplot analyses. Crop Sci 45: 2414-2424.
Setimela PS, Vivek B, Banziger M, Crossa J and Maideni F, 2007. Evaluation of early to medium maturing open pollinated maize varieties in SADC region using GGE biplot based on the SREG model. Field Crops Res 103: 161-169.
Yan W, 2001. GGE biplot–A windows application for graphical analysis of multi-environment trial data and other types of two-way data. Agron J 93: 1111-1118.
Yan W, Cornelius PL, Crossa J and Hunt LA, 2001. Two types of GGE biplots for analyzing multi-environment trial data. Crop Sci 41: 656-663.
Yan W, Hunt LA, Sheng Q and Szlavnics Z, 2000. Cultivar evaluation and mega-environment investigation based on the GGE biplot. Crop Sci 40: 597-605.
Yan W and Kang MS, 2003. GGE Biplot Analysis: A Graphical Tool for Breeders, Geneticists, and Agronomists. Boca RatonFL, CRC Press.
Yan W, Kang MS, Ma B, Woods S and Cornelius PL, 2007. GGE biplot vs. AMMI analysis of genotype-by-environment data. Crop Sci 47: 643-655.
Yan W and Tinker N, 2005. An intergraded analysis system for displaying, interpreting, and exploring genotype×environment interaction. Crop Sci 45: 1004-1016.