基于GYT双标图分析对黄淮海生态区玉米品种综合评价

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1006.2024.33034

作物学报 ›› 2024, Vol. 50 ›› Issue (4): 836-856.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2024.33034

• 作物遗传育种·种质资源·分子遗传学 • 上一篇下一篇

基于GYT双标图分析对黄淮海生态区玉米品种综合评价

岳海旺(), 魏建伟, 刘朋程, 陈淑萍, 卜俊周()

河北省农林科学院旱作农业研究所 / 河北省农作物抗旱研究重点实验室, 河北衡水 053000

收稿日期:2023-05-22 接受日期:2023-10-23 出版日期:2024-04-12 网络出版日期:2023-11-29
通讯作者: * 卜俊周, E-mail: bujunzhou@126.com
作者简介:E-mail: yanjiu1982@163.com
基金资助:
河北省“三三三人才工程”人才培养项目(A202101056);河北省重点研发计划项目(20326305D);财政部和农业农村部国家现代农业产业技术体系建设专项(玉米, CARS-02);河北省玉米现代种业科技创新团队(21326319D);河北省农林科学院科技创新专项课题(2023KJCXZX-HZS-1);河北省农林科学院科技创新专项课题(2023KJCXZX-HZS-12)

Comprehensive evaluation of maize hybrids in the mega-environments of Huanghuaihai plain based on GYT biplot analysis

YUE Hai-Wang(), WEI Jian-Wei, LIU Peng-Cheng, CHEN Shu-Ping, BU Jun-Zhou()

Dryland Farming Institute, Hebei Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences / Hebei Provincial Key Laboratory of Crops Drought Resistance Research, Hengshui 053000, Hebei, China

Received:2023-05-22 Accepted:2023-10-23 Published:2024-04-12 Published online:2023-11-29
Contact: * E-mail: bujunzhou@126.com
Supported by:
“Three-Three-Three Talent Project” Funded Project in Hebei Province(A202101056);Key Research and Development Projects of Hebei Province(20326305D);China Agriculture Research System of MOF and MARA (Maize, CARS-02);Hebei Provincial Maize Modern Seed Industry Science and Technology Innovation Team(21326319D);HAAFS Science and Technology Innovation Special Project(2023KJCXZX-HZS-1);HAAFS Science and Technology Innovation Special Project(2023KJCXZX-HZS-12)

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

针对不同环境、多性状条件下优良品种选择效率低下的问题, 探讨整合环境型鉴定技术(envirotyping techniques, ET)和多性状选择对黄淮海夏玉米区试参试品种进行综合评价, 以期为品种合理布局提供理论依据。本研究以2016—2017年黄淮海夏玉米组区域试验数据为材料, 基于当年19个环境协变量信息采用ET将40个试点划分为不同生态区(mega-environments, ME)。采用品种-产量×性状(genotype by yield × trait, GYT)双标图技术对不同生态区(mega-environments, ME)籽粒产量与生育期、株高、穗位高、倒伏率、空秆率、穗长、秃尖、穗行数、穗粒重、百粒重、茎腐病和黑粉病等农艺性状的组合表现进行综合评价, 研究GYT双标图技术在玉米区域试验多性状评价中的作用。AMMI方差分析表明, 2016年被测农艺性状基因型、环境和互作效应均达到了极显著水平(P<0.01), 2017年被测农艺性状除穗位高互作效应不显著外, 其余性状基因型、环境和互作效应均达到了极显著水平。根据当年气象因子信息将位于8个省份的40个试点划分为4个ME, 降水亏缺(dbp)、饱和水汽压差(vpd)、相对湿度(rh)和最高温度(T_max)在5个物候期中呈现出较大的变化趋势。GYT双标图与ME结合, 可以筛选出不同ME的优势品种。2016年参试品种中, 衡玉321和冀丰118在划定的4个ME中均表现出丰产性突出、稳定性较好的特征, 属于丰产稳产型品种。而潞玉36和潞研1502则属于参试品种中丰产性、稳定性均较差的品种。2017年参试品种中, DK56在ME2和ME4试点中产量-性状组合表现较为协调, DK205和衡玉6105分别在ME1和ME3生态区中有较好的表现。对照品种郑单958两年区域试验表现出较好的稳定性但丰产性一般。基于环境型鉴定技术划分生态区与GYT双标图相结合对参试品种的丰产性、适应性和稳定性进行评价, 实现品种推广的精细定位, 为黄淮海夏玉米区品种多性状综合评价提供理论基础。

关键词: 夏玉米品种, 生态区, 基因型与环境互作, 气候变量, GYT双标图

Abstract:

The selection of superior maize hybrids under different climatic types and multiple traits has been a difficult problem for crop breeders. It is necessary to explore the combination of envirotyping techniques (ET) and multi-trait selection for the comprehensive evaluation of the participating hybrids in the summer maize regional trials in the Huanghuaihai plain, which can provide a theoretical basis for the rational layout of hybrids. In this study, based on the data of the Huanghuaihai summer maize group from 2016 to 2017 were used, 40 sites were divided into different mega-environments (ME) by envirotyping techniques based on 19 environmental covariates in the same year. The combination performance of agronomic traits such as growth period, plant height, ear height, lodging rate, empty ears rate, ear length, bare tip length, kernels row number, grains weight per ear, hundred-seed weight, stalk rot, and common smut in the different mega-environments was comprehensively evaluated by using the GYT biplot technique. The ANOVA of the Additive Main effects and Multiplicative Interaction (AMMI) model showed that genotype (G), environment (E), and GE effects for the evaluated agronomic traits reached highly significant level (P<0.01) in 2016 and that genotype, environment, and GE effects for the evaluated agronomic traits reached highly significant level in 2017, except for the GE effect of ear height, which was not significant. The 40 sites located in eight provinces were divided into four MEs based on the meteorological factor information of the current year, and meteorological factors deficit by precipitation (dbp), maximum temperature (T_max), vapor pressure deficit (vpd), and relative humidity (rh) showed a large trend during the five phenological periods. Among the hybrids evaluated in 2016, Hengyu 321 and Jifeng 118 both showed outstanding productivity and good stability in the four mega-environments, which belonged to the productive and stable genotypes. Among the genotypes evaluated in 2017, DK 56 showed a more harmonious yield-trait combination in ME2 and ME4, while DK205 and Hengyu 6105 performed better in ME1 and ME3, respectively. The control hybrid Zhengdan 958 had a good stability but an average productivity in the two-year regional trials. In conclusion, based on the combination of environtyping techniques to divide mega-environments and GYT biplot, we evaluated the high-yielding, the adaptability and stability of the evaluated hybrids, which could realize the fine positioning of genotype promotion, and provide a theoretical basis for the comprehensive evaluation of multiple traits of genotypes in the summer maize area of the Huanghuaihai plain.

Key words: summer maize hybrid, mega-environment, genotype-environment interaction, climatic variables, genotype × yield × trait biplot (GYT biplot)

岳海旺, 魏建伟, 刘朋程, 陈淑萍, 卜俊周. 基于GYT双标图分析对黄淮海生态区玉米品种综合评价[J]. 作物学报, 2024, 50(4): 836-856.

YUE Hai-Wang, WEI Jian-Wei, LIU Peng-Cheng, CHEN Shu-Ping, BU Jun-Zhou. Comprehensive evaluation of maize hybrids in the mega-environments of Huanghuaihai plain based on GYT biplot analysis[J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2024, 50(4): 836-856.

图/表 25

表1

表2

试点环境信息"

省份 Province	试点 Testing site	经度 Longitude	纬度 Latitude	海拔 Altitude (m)	年份 Year
河北Hebei	武强Wuqiang	115°98′	38°06′	18	2016-2017
河北Hebei	藁城Gaocheng	114°85′	38°02′	59	2016-2017
河北Hebei	邯郸Handan	114°54′	36°63′	55	2016-2017
河北Hebei	深州Shenzhou	115°56′	38°01′	28	2016-2017
河北Hebei	赵县Zhaoxian	114°78′	37°76′	44	2016-2017
河北Hebei	高阳Gaoyang	115°79′	38°68′	12	2016
河北Hebei	泊头Botou	116°54′	37°94′	16	2016
河北Hebei	永年Yongnian	114°50′	36°78′	65	2017
河北Hebei	行唐Xingtang	114°55′	38°43′	102	2017
河南Henan	原阳Yuanyang	113°97′	35°05′	78	2016-2017
河南Henan	南阳Nanyang	112°52′	32°99′	131	2016-2017
河南Henan	荥阳Xingyang	113°38′	34°79′	144	2016-2017
河南Henan	鹤壁Hebi	114°28′	35°74′	88	2016-2017
河南Henan	新乡Xinxiang	113°92′	35°30′	70	2016-2017
河南Henan	焦作Jiaozuo	113°24′	35°22′	100	2016-2017
河南Henan	滑县Huaxian	114°45′	35°63′	72	2016-2017
河南Henan	洛阳Luoyang	112°46′	34°61′	140	2016-2017
河南Henan	周口Zhoukou	114°69′	33°62′	49	2016
河南Henan	巩义Gongyi	113°01′	34°63′	670	2016
河南Henan	驻马店Zhumadian	114°02′	33°01′	84	2016
河南Henan	商丘Shangqiu	115°65′	34°41′	50	2016
河南Henan	小冀Xiaoji	113°77′	35°18′	80	2016
河南Henan	临颍Linying	113°93′	33°83′	62	2017
河南Henan	西华Xihua	114°53′	33°76′	52	2017
河南Henan	西平Xiping	114°02′	33°39′	64	2017
河南Henan	辉县Huixian	113°80′	35°46′	95	2017
河南Henan	长葛Changge	113°82′	34°19′	88	2017
湖北Hubei	襄阳Xiangyang	112°12′	32°01′	70	2017
江苏Jiangsu	徐州Xuzhou	117°95′	33°85′	25	2016-2017
江苏Jiangsu	宿迁Suqian	118°82′	34°04′	10	2016
山东Shandong	聊城Liaocheng	115°99′	36°46′	37	2016-2017
山东Shandong	济宁Jining	116°54′	35°37′	38	2016-2017
山东Shandong	莱州Laizhou	119°95′	37°17′	56	2016-2017
山东Shandong	潍坊Weifang	119°19′	36°60′	82	2016-2017
山东Shandong	德州Dezhou	116°36′	37°43′	23	2016-2017
山东Shandong	嘉祥Jiaxiang	116°40′	35°36′	36	2016-2017
山东Shandong	平度Pingdu	120°02′	37°10′	18	2016-2017
山东Shandong	临朐Linqu	118°48′	36°50′	407	2016-2017
山东Shandong	临沂Linyi	117°61′	35°57′	174	2016-2017
山东Shandong	泰安Tai’an	117°09′	36°20′	167	2020-2021
山东Shandong	菏泽Heze	115°58′	35°04′	45	2016
山东Shandong	淄博Zibo	117°89′	36°45′	77	2017
山东Shandong	东营Dongying	118°54′	37°50′	7	2017
山东Shandong	茌平Chiping	116°30′	36°50′	35	2017
山东Shandong	章丘Zhangqiu	117°52′	36°68′	143	2016
安徽Anhui	界首Jieshou	115°35′	32°96′	35	2016-2017
安徽Anhui	埇桥Yongqiao	117°06′	33°61′	23	2016-2017
安徽Anhui	泗县Sixian	117°91′	33°41′	19	2016
山西Shanxi	运城Yuncheng	110°89′	35°01′	369	2016-2017
陕西Shaanxi	杨凌Yangling	108°08′	34°27′	465	2016-2017
陕西Shaanxi	泾阳Jingyang	108°75′	34°46′	388	2016-2017

表2

表3

表4

2016年参试品种农艺性状AMMI模型分析"

变异来源 Source of variations	籽粒产量 Grain yield (kg hm^-2)		生育期 Growth period (d)		株高 Plant height (cm)		穗长 Ear length (cm)
变异来源 Source of variations	平方和 Sum of square	占比 Percentage (%)	平方和 Sum of square	占比 Percentage (%)	平方和 Sum of square	占比 Percentage (%)	平方和 Sum of square	占比 Percentage (%)
基因型G	104,297,302.00^**	11.22^a	556.98^**	3.75^a	16.29^**	50.31^a	449.91^**	26.23^a
环境 E	514,296,691.09^**	55.31^a	11,295.23^**	75.99^a	9.06^**	27.97^a	638.61^**	37.24^a
互作G×E	311,236,339.89^**	33.47^a	3011.95^**	20.26^a	7.03^**	21.72^a	626.52^**	36.53^a
第一主成分PC1	88,415,976.66^**	28.41^b	2190.35^**	72.72^b	2.18^**	31.08^b	153.29^**	24.47^b
第二主成分PC2	53,807,079.58^**	17.29^b	224.13^**	7.44^b	1.11^**	15.77^b	97.99^**	15.64^b
变异来源 Source of Variance	茎腐病 Stalk rot (%)		秃尖 Bare tip length (cm)		百粒重 Hundred-seed weight (g)		倒伏率 Lodging rate (%)
变异来源 Source of Variance	平方和 Sum of square	占比 Percentage (%)	平方和 Sum of square	占比 Percentage (%)	平方和 Sum of square	占比 Percentage (%)	平方和 Sum of square	占比 Percentage (%)
基因型 G	657.54^**	5.06^a	97.06^**	23.74^a	2144.93^**	23.88^a	3,715.86^**	9.57^a
环境 E	2358.43^**	18.16^a	144.60^**	35.38^a	4179.72^**	46.53^a	11,521.50^**	29.66^a
互作G×E	9974.26^**	76.78^a	167.09^*	40.88^a	2658.61^*	29.60^a	23,606.78^**	60.77^a
第一主成分PC1	6505.80^**	65.23^b	38.32^**	22.93^b	552.15^**	20.77^b	16,678.64^**	70.65^b
第二种成分PC2	2221.05^**	22.27^b	33.33^**	19.95^b	467.16^**	17.57^b	2,829.18^**	11.98^b
变异来源 Source of variations	穗位高 Ear height (cm)		空秆率 Empty ears rate (%)		穗粒重 Grains weight per ear (g)		穗行数 Kernel row number
变异来源 Source of variations	平方和 Sum of square	占比 Percentage (%)	平方和 Sum of square	占比 Percentage (%)	平方和 Sum of square	占比 Percentage (%)	平方和 Sum of square	占比 Percentage (%)
基因型G	2.23^**	21.75^a	617.39^**	6.58^a	10,890.70^**	3.02^a	242.21^**	34.44^a
环境 E	4.55^**	44.44^a	4754.40^**	50.64^a	238,390.87^**	66.19^a	193.68^**	27.54^a
互作G×E	3.46^**	33.80^a	4017.41^**	42.79^a	110,899.41^*	30.79^a	267.48^*	38.03^a
第一主成分PC1	0.85^**	24.63^b	2106.61^**	52.44^b	26,190.91^**	23.62^b	64.58^**	24.14^b
第二主成分PC2	0.60^**	17.29^b	686.58^**	17.09^b	17,841.66^**	16.09^b	37.44^**	14.00^b
变异来源 Source of variations	黑粉病 Common smut (%)
变异来源 Source of variations	平方和 Sum of square	占比 Percentage (%)
基因型 G	33.28^**	6.48^a
环境 E	209.12^**	40.73^a
互作G×E	270.97^**	52.78^a
第一主成分PC1	124.87^**	46.08^b
第二主成分PC2	65.31^**	24.10^b

表4

表5

2017年参试品种农艺性状AMMI模型分析"

变异来源 Source of variations	籽粒产量 Grain yield (kg hm^-2)		生育期 Growth period (d)		株高 Plant height (cm)		穗长 Ear length (cm)
变异来源 Source of variations	平方和 Sum of square	占比 Percentage (%)	平方和 Sum of square	占比 Percentage (%)	平方和 Sum of square	占比 Percentage (%)	平方和 Sum of square	占比 Percentage (%)
基因型 G	126,699,091.28^**	11.30^a	310.33^**	2.74^a	24.60^**	45.24^a	254.59^**	16.81^a
环境 E	727,983,372.76^**	64.94^a	9669.41^**	85.46^a	22.87^**	42.05^a	639.58^**	42.23^a
互作G×E	266,401,328.41^**	23.76^a	1334.31^**	11.79^a	6.91^**	12.71^a	620.22^**	40.96^a
第一主成分PC1	64,270,653.80^**	24.13^b	469.35^**	35.18^b	2.05^**	29.69^b	152.08^**	24.52^b
第二主成分PC2	44,125,936.33^**	16.56^b	261.33^**	19.59^b	1.01^**	14.56^b	99.95^**	16.12^b
变异来源 Source of Variance	茎腐病 Stalk rot (%)		秃尖 Bare tip length (cm)		百粒重 Hundred-seed weight (g)		倒伏率 Lodging rate (%)
变异来源 Source of Variance	平方和 Sum of square	占比 Percentage (%)	平方和 Sum of square	占比 Percentage (%)	平方和 Sum of square	占比 Percentage (%)	平方和 Sum of square	占比 Percentage (%)
基因型 G	4,851.65^**	9.34^a	102.16^**	16.02^a	1858.69^**	16.04^a	437.02^**	6.38^a
环境 E	22,552.31^**	43.44^a	149.08^**	23.38^a	6456.73^**	55.71^a	1,999.51^**	29.21^a
互作G×E	24,514.94^**	47.22^a	386.49^**	60.60^a	3274.52^**	28.25^a	4,408.72^**	64.41^a
第一主成分PC1	12,850.15^**	52.42^b	228.95^**	59.24^b	625.46^**	19.10^b	2,439.29^**	55.33^b
第二种成分PC2	5,868.29^**	23.94^b	37.83^**	9.79^b	452.38^*	13.82^b	506.29^**	11.48^b
变异来源 Source of variations	穗位高 Ear height (cm)		空秆率 Empty ears rate (%)		穗粒重 Grains weight per ear (g)		穗行数 Kernel row number
变异来源 Source of variations	平方和 Sum of square	占比 Percentage (%)	平方和 Sum of square	占比 Percentage (%)	平方和 Sum of square	占比 Percentage (%)	平方和 Sum of square	占比 Percentage (%)
基因型 G	4.83^**	31.77^a	61.48^**	0.75^a	38,332.15^**	8.61^a	334.43^**	1.33^a
环境 E	6.95^**	45.70^a	6417.13^**	78.75^a	298,178.23^**	66.94^a	1,830.65^**	7.27^a
互作G×E	3.43^ns	22.56^a	1670.48^**	20.50^a	108,901.75^**	24.45^a	23,030.67^**	91.41^a
第一主成分PC1	0.64^**	18.67^b	819.82^**	49.08^b	22,716.35^**	20.86^b	13,771.85^**	59.80^b
第二主成分PC2	0.56^**	16.21^b	271.84^**	16.27^b	16,310.55^**	14.98^b	8,857.66^**	38.46^b
变异来源 Source of variations	黑粉病 Common smut (%)
变异来源 Source of variations	平方和 Sum of square	占比 Percentage (%)
基因型 G	55.68^**	4.63^a
环境 E	372.02^**	30.94^a
互作G×E	774.78^**	64.43^a
第一主成分PC1	294.99^**	38.07^b
第二主成分PC2	166.60^**	21.50^b

表5

图1

附图1

图2

图3

附图2

附图3

附图4

附图5

图4

图5

表6

附表1

表7

附表2

图6

图7

附图6

附图7

附图8

附图9

参考文献 51

[1]	Haarhoff S J, Swanepoel P A. Plant population and maize grain yield: a global systematic review of rainfed trials. Crop Sci, 2018, 58: 1819-1829. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2018.01.0003
[2]	王行川, 费继飞, 刘东胜, 高飞, 王爱芬, 原志强, 陈瑞杰, 孙招, 张长征, 王义波. 基于玉米新品种联创808选育的商业育种问题探讨. 玉米科学, 2020, 28(5): 14-19.
	Wang X C, Fei J F, Liu D S, Gao F, Wang A F, Yuan Z Q, Chen R J, Sun Z, Zhang C Z, Wang Y B. Breeding of a corn hybrid Lantron 808 and its implication for commercial breeding. J Maize Sci, 2020, 28(5): 14-19. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[3]	Diouf I, Derivot L, Koussevitzky S, Carretero Y, Bitton F, Moreau L, Causse M. Genetic basis of phenotypic plasticity and genotype× environment interactions in a multi-parental tomato population. J Exp Bot, 2020, 71: 5365-5376. doi: 10.1093/jxb/eraa265
[4]	Ligarreto M G, Pimentel L C. Grain yield and genotype × environment interaction in bean cultivars with different growth habits. Plant Prod Sci, 2022, 25: 232-241. doi: 10.1080/1343943X.2021.1981141
[5]	Yue H W, Gauch H G, Wei J W, Xie J L, Chen S P, Peng H C, Bu J Z, Jiang X W. Genotype by environment interaction analysis for grain yield and yield components of summer maize hybrids across the Huanghuaihai region in China. Agriculture, 2022, 12: 602. doi: 10.3390/agriculture12050602
[6]	Shirazi S Z, Mei X, Liu B, Liu Y. Estimating potential yield and change in water budget for wheat and maize across Huang-Huai- Hai Plain in the future. Agric Water Manag, 2022, 260: 107282. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2021.107282
[7]	Ling M, Han H, Hu X, Xia Q, Guo X. Drought characteristics and causes during summer maize growth period on Huang-Huai- Hai Plain based on daily scale SPEI. Agric Water Manag, 2023, 280: 108198. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2023.108198
[8]	Yue H, Wei J, Xie J, Chen S, Peng H, Cao H, Jiang X. A study on genotype-by-Environment interaction analysis for agronomic traits of maize genotypes across Huang-Huai-Hai region in China. Phyton-Int J Exp Bot, 2022, 91: 57-81.
[9]	徐云碧. 作物科学中的环境型鉴定(Envirotyping)及其应用. 中国农业科学, 2015, 48: 3354-3371. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2015.17.004
	Xu Y B. Envirotyping and its applications in crop science. Sci Agric Sin, 2015, 48: 3354-3371. (in Chinese with English abstract) doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2015.17.004
[10]	Xu Y. Envirotyping for deciphering environmental impacts on crop plants. Theor Appl Genet, 2016, 129: 653-673. doi: 10.1007/s00122-016-2691-5 pmid: 26932121
[11]	Costa-Neto G, Fritsche-Neto R, Crossa J. Nonlinear kernels, dominance, and envirotyping data increase the accuracy of genome- based prediction in multi-environment trials. Heredity, 2021, 126: 92-106. doi: 10.1038/s41437-020-00353-1
[12]	Smith D T, Potgieter A B, Chapman S C. Scaling up high- throughput phenotyping for abiotic stress selection in the field. Theor Appl Genet, 2021, 134: 1845-1866. doi: 10.1007/s00122-021-03864-5
[13]	岳海旺, 魏建伟, 谢俊良, 姚文影, 曹红梅, 陈淑萍, 彭海成, 卜俊周. 基因型和环境互作对黄淮海夏玉米品种籽粒产量的影响. 中国农业大学学报, 2022, 27: 31-43.
	Yue H W, Wei J W, Xie J L, Yao W Y, Cao H M, Chen S P, Peng H C, Bu J Z. Effect of interaction between genotype and environment on the grain yield of summer maize hybrids in Huanghuaihai region. J Chin Agric Univ, 2022, 27: 31-43. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[14]	Yan W, Nilsen K T, Beattie A. Mega-environment analysis and breeding for specific adaptation. Crop Sci, 2023, 63: 480-494. doi: 10.1002/csc2.v63.2
[15]	Yan W K, Frégeau-Reid J. Genotype by yield × trait (GYT) biplot: a novel approach for genotype selection based on multiple traits. Sci Rep, 2018, 8: 8242. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-26688-8
[16]	Elfanah A M, Darwish m A, Selim A I, Shabana M M, Elmoselhy O M, Khedr R A, Abdelhamid M T. Spectral reflectance indices’ performance to identify seawater salinity tolerance in bread wheat genotypes using genotype by yield × trait biplot approach. Agronomy, 2023, 13: 353. doi: 10.3390/agronomy13020353
[17]	许乃银, 赵素琴, 张芳, 付小琼, 杨晓妮, 乔银桃, 孙世贤. 基于GYT双标图对西北内陆棉区国审棉花品种的分类评价. 作物学报, 2021, 47: 660-671. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2021.04135
	Xu N Y, Zhao S Q, Zhang F, Fu X Q, Yang X N, Qiao Y T, Sun S X. Retrospective evaluation of cotton varieties nationally registered for the Northwest Inland cotton growing regions based on GYT biplot analysis. Acta Agron Sin, 2021, 47: 660-671. (in Chinese with English abstract) doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2021.04135
[18]	NY/T 1209-2020. 农作物品种试验与信息化技术规程:玉米. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2020.
	NY/T 1209-2020. Regulations for the Variety Tests and Information of Field Crop:Maize (Zea mays L.). Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2020. (in Chinese)
[19]	Costa-Neto G, Galli G, Carvalho H F, Crossa J, Fritsche-Neto R. EnvRtype: a software to interplay environs and quantitative genomics in agriculture. Genes Genom Genet, 2021, 11: jkab040.
[20]	Sparks A H. Nasapower: a NASA POWER global meteorology, surface solar energy and climatology data client for R. J Open Source Softw, 2018, 3: 1035. doi: 10.21105/joss
[21]	Ghanem M E, Marrou H, Sinclair T R. Physiological phenotyping of plants for crop improvement. Trends Plant Sci, 2015, 20: 139-144. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2014.11.006 pmid: 25524213
[22]	Munda S, Sarma N, Lal M, Aromatic M, Group E P. G × E interaction of 72 accessions with three year evaluation of Cymbopogon winterianus Jowitt. using regression coefficient and Additive Main effects and Multiplicative Interaction model (AMMI). Ind Crop Prod, 2020, 146: 112169. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2020.112169
[23]	Yan W, Holland J B. A heritability-adjusted GGE biplot for test environment evaluation. Euphytica, 2010, 171: 355-369. doi: 10.1007/s10681-009-0030-5
[24]	Ghazvini H, Bagherikia S, Pour-Aboughadareh A, Sharifalhossaini M, Razavi S A, Mohammadi S, Khakizade G. GGE biplot analysis of promising barley lines in the cold regions of Iran. J Crop Improv, 2022, 36: 461-472. doi: 10.1080/15427528.2021.1977448
[25]	Yan W, Hunt L A, Sheng Q, Szlavnics Z. Cultivar evaluation and mega-environment investigation based on the GGE biplot. Crop Sci, 2000, 40: 597-605. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2000.403597x
[26]	Abu N E, Uguru M I, Obi I U. Genotype by trait relations of yield and yield components in aromatic peppers (Capsicum annuum) based on GT biplot. J Plant Breed Crop Sci, 2011, 3: 382-390.
[27]	Tang Q Y, Zhang C X. Data Processing System (DPS) software with experimental design, statistical analysis and data mining developed for use in entomological research. Insect Sci, 2013, 20: 254-260. doi: 10.1111/ins.2013.20.issue-2
[28]	Tao F, Xiao D, Zhang S, Zhang Z, Rötter R P. Wheat yield benefited from increases in minimum temperature in the Huang- Huai-Hai Plain of China in the past three decades. Agric For Meteorol, 2017, 239: 1-14. doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2017.02.033
[29]	Qin J, Xu R, Li H. Yang C Y, Liu D, Liu Z X, Zhang L F, Lu W G, Frett T, Chen P Y, Zhang M C. Evaluation of productivity and stability of elite summer soybean cultivars in multi-environment trials. Euphytica, 2015, 206: 759-773. doi: 10.1007/s10681-015-1513-1
[30]	Shekoofa A, Sinclair T R, Messina C D, Cooper M. Variation among maize hybrids in response to high vapor pressure deficit at high temperatures. Crop Sci, 2016, 56: 392-396. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2015.02.0134
[31]	Crafts-Brandner S J, Salvucci M E. Sensitivity of photosynthesis in a C₄ plant, maize, to heat stress. Plant Physiol, 2002, 129: 1773-1780. doi: 10.1104/pp.002170 pmid: 12177490
[32]	Sowiński P, Fronk J, Jończyk M, Grzybowski M, Kowalec P, Sobkowiak A. Maize response to low temperatures at the gene expression level: a critical survey of transcriptomic studies. Front Plant Sci, 2020, 11: 576941. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2020.576941
[33]	Slam M S, Hasan M K, Islam m R, Chowdhury M K, Pramanik M H, Iqbal M A, Rajendran K, Iqbal R, Soufan W, Kamran M, Sabagh A. Water relations and yield characteristics of mungbean as influenced by foliar application of gibberellic acid (GA₃). Front Ecol Evol, 2023, 11: 1048768. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2023.1048768
[34]	Yang Z, Sinclair T R, Zhu M, Messina C D, Cooper M, Hammer G L. Temperature effect on transpiration response of maize plants to vapor pressure deficit. Environ Exp Bot, 2012, 78: 157-162. doi: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2011.12.034
[35]	Cramer M D, Hawkins H J, Verboom G A. The importance of nutritional regulation of plant water flux. Oecologia, 2009, 161: 15-24. doi: 10.1007/s00442-009-1364-3 pmid: 19449035
[36]	Kamutando C N, Muungani D, Masvodza D R, Gasura E. Exploiting genotype × environment interaction in maize breeding in Zimbabwe. Afr J Agric Res, 2013, 8: 4058-4066.
[37]	Mebratu A, Wegary D, Mohammed W, Teklewold A, Tarekegne A. Genotype × environment interaction of quality protein maize hybrids under contrasting management conditions in Eastern and Southern Africa. Crop Sci, 2019, 59: 1576-1589. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2018.12.0722
[38]	Arunkumar B, Gangapp E, Ramesh S L, Savithramma D, Nagaraju N, Lokesha R. Stability analysis of maize (Zea mays L.) hybrids for grain yield and its attributing traits using Eberhart and Russel model. Curr J Appl Sci Technol, 2020, 39: 52-63.
[39]	Adu G B, Badu-Apraku B, Akromah R, Haruna A, Amegbor I K, Amadu M K. Grain yield and stability of early-maturing single- cross hybrids of maize across contrasting environments. J Crop Improv, 2019, 33: 776-796. doi: 10.1080/15427528.2019.1661055
[40]	Ceglar A, Kajfež-Bogataj L. Simulation of maize yield in current and changed climatic conditions: addressing modelling uncertainties and the importance of bias correction in climate model simulations. Eur J Agron, 2012, 37: 83-95. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2011.11.005
[41]	Das J, Poonia V, Jha S, Goyal M K. Understanding the climate change impact on crop yield over Eastern Himalayan Region: ascertaining GCM and scenario uncertainty. Theor Appl Climatol, 2020, 142: 467-482. doi: 10.1007/s00704-020-03332-y
[42]	de Araujo M J, de Paula R C, Campoe O C, Carneiro R L. Adaptability and stability of eucalypt clones at different ages across environmental gradients in Brazil. For Ecol Manag, 2019, 454: 117631. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2019.117631
[43]	Guo Q, Huang G, Guo Y, Zhang M, Zhou Y, Duan L. Optimizing irrigation and planting density of spring maize under mulch drip irrigation system in the arid region of Northwest China. Field Crops Res, 2021, 266: 108141. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2021.108141
[44]	Yue H W, Wei J W, Xie J L, Chen S P, Peng H C, Bu J Z. A study on genotype × environment interactions for the multiple traits of maize hybrids in China. Agron J, 2021, 113: 4889-4899. doi: 10.1002/agj2.v113.6
[45]	Singh C, Gupta A, Gupta V, Kumar P, Sendhil R, Tyagi B S. Genotype × environment interaction analysis of multi-environment wheat trials in India using AMMI and GGE biplot models. Crop Breed Appl Biot, 2019, 19: 309-318.
[46]	Mushayi M, Shimelis H, Derera J, Shayanowako A I T, Mathew I. Multi-environmental evaluation of maize hybrids developed from tropical and temperate lines. Euphytica, 2020, 216: 1-14. doi: 10.1007/s10681-019-2539-6
[47]	Enyew M, Feyissa T, Geleta M, Tesfaye K, Hammenhag C, Carlsson A S. Genotype by environment interaction, correlation, AMMI, GGE biplot and cluster analysis for grain yield and other agronomic traits in sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench). PLoS One, 2021, 16: e0258211. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258211
[48]	Shojaei S H, Mostafavi K, Bihamta M R, Omrani A, Mousavi S M N, Illés Á. Stability on maize hybrids based on GGE biplot graphical technique. Agronomy, 2022, 12: 394. doi: 10.3390/agronomy12020394
[49]	岳海旺, 韩轩, 魏建伟, 郑书宏, 谢俊良, 陈淑萍, 彭海成, 卜俊周. 基于GYT双标图分析对黄淮海夏玉米区域试验品种综合评价. 作物学报, 2023, 49: 1230-1247.
	Yue H W, Han X, Wei J W, Zheng S H, Xie J L, Chen S P, Peng H C, Bu J Z. Comprehensive evaluation of maize hybrids tested in Huang-Huai-Hai summer maize regional trial based on GYT biplot analysis. Acta Agron Sin, 2023, 49: 1230-1247. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[50]	Shojaei S, Mostafavi K, Ansarifad I, Bihamta M, Zeinalzadeh-Tabrizi H, Omrani A, Mousavi S M N. Comparison of genotype × trait and genotype × yield-trait biplots in Sunflower cultivars. Int J Agric Environ Food Sci, 2023, 7: 136-147.
[51]	Gholizadeh A, Ghaffari M, Siahbidi Z, Rezaeizad A. Multi-trait selection in sunflower hybrids using double and triple biplots. J Crop Breed, 2022, 14: 29-41.

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

品种名称 Hybrid name	品种缩写 Hybrid abbreviation	试验年份 Year	品种名称 Hybrid name	品种缩写 Hybrid abbreviation	试验年份 Year
衡玉321 Hengyu 321	HY321	2016-2017	宿单617 Sudan 617	SD617	2017
DK56	DK56	2016-2017	DK205	DK205	2017
潞研1502 Luyan 1502	LY1502	2016	冀玉902 Jiyu 902	JY902	2017
潞玉36 Luyu 36	LY36	2016	冀玉757 Jiyu 757	JY757	2017
冀丰118 Jifeng 118	JF118	2016-2017	衡玉6105 Hengyu 6105	HY6105	2017
邯玉9112 Hanyu 9112	HY9112	2016	中单111 Zhongdan 111	ZD111	2017
宿单510 Sudan 510	SD510	2016	潞研1611 Luyan 1611	LY1611	2017
冀玉518 Jiyu 518	JY518	2016	唐玉6461 Tangyu 6461	TY6461	2017
中农大626 Zhongnongda 626	ZND626	2016	邯玉5177 Hanyu 5177	HY5177	2017
中农大696 Zhongnongda 696	ZND696	2016	PT1212	PT1212	2017
唐玉6678 Tangyu 6678	TY6678	2016	郑单958 Zhengdan 958	ZD958	2016-2017
冀玉196 Jiyu 196	JY196	2016

来源 Source	协变量名称 Environmental factor	单位 Unit
Nasa POWER^a	水平表面上的日射Insolation incident on a horizontal surface	MJ m^-2 d^-1
	向下热红外(长波)辐射通量Downward thermal infrared (longwave) radiative flux	MJ m^-2 d^-1
	地外辐射Extraterrestrial radiation	MJ m^-2 d^-1
	离地2 m处的风速Wind speed at 2 m above the surface of the earth	m s^-1
	离地2 m处的最低温度Minimum air temperature at 2 above the surface of the earth	℃ d^-1
	离地2 m处的平均温度Average air temperature at 2 above the surface of the earth	℃ d^-1
	离地2 m处的最高温度Maximum air temperature at 2 above the surface of the earth	℃ d^-1
	离地2 m处的露点温度Dew-point temperature at 2 m above the surface of the earth	℃ d^-1
	离地2 m处的相对湿度Relative air humidity at 2 above the surface of the earth	%
	降水量Rainfall precipitation	mm d^-1
Calculated ^b	温度区间Temperature range	℃ d^-1
	潜在蒸散量Potential evapotranspiration	mm d^-1
	降水亏缺Deficit by precipitation	mm d^-1
	饱和水汽压差Vapor pressure deficit	kPa d^-1
	饱和蒸汽压曲线斜率Slope of saturation vapor pressure curve	kPa ℃ d^-1
	温度对辐射利用效率的影响Effect of temperature on radiation-use efficiency	from 0 to 1
	生长度日Growing degree day	℃ d^-1
	实际日照时间Actual duration of sunshine	h
	白昼时间Daylight hours	h

产量×性状 Yield by trait	Y×BTL(-1)	Y×CS(-1)	Y×EER(-1)	Y×EH	Y×EL	Y×GP	Y×GWE	Y×HSW	Y×KRN	Y×LR(-1)	Y×PH	Y×SR(-1)
产量×秃尖长度Y×BTL(-1)	1
产量×黑粉病Y×CS(-1)	0.348^ns	1
产量×空秆率Y×EER(-1)	0.580^*	0.278^ns	1
产量×穗位高 Y×EH	0.749^**	0.356^ns	0.774^**	1
产量×穗长 Y×EL	0.759^**	0.349^ns	0.811^**	0.961^**	1
产量×生育期 Y×GP	0.776^**	0.343^ns	0.837^**	0.960^**	0.987^**	1
产量×穗粒重Y×GWE	0.804^**	0.362^ns	0.826^**	0.961^**	0.950^**	0.950^**	1
产量×百粒重Y×HSW	0.716^**	0.318^ns	0.817^**	0.970^**	0.975^**	0.975^**	0.957^**	1
产量×穗行数Y×KRN	0.686^**	0.338^ns	0.759^**	0.971^**	0.978^**	0.966^**	0.933^**	0.988^**	1
产量×倒伏率Y×LR(-1)	0.306^ns	0.139^ns	0.375^ns	0.394^ns	0.298^ns	0.375^ns	0.354^ns	0.325^ns	0.269^ns	1
产量×株高 Y×PH	0.760^**	0.289^ns	0.813^ns	0.969^**	0.986^ns	0.987^**	0.939^ns	0.974^**	0.976^**	0.346^ns	1
产量×茎腐病Y×SR(-1)	0.085^ns	-0.206^ns	0.574^*	0.525^*	0.438^ns	0.424^ns	0.467^ns	0.495^ns	0.486^ns	0.332^ns	0.464^ns	1

品种名称 Genotype name	产量×秃尖 Y× BTL (-1)	产量×瘤黑粉病 Y*CS (-1)	产量×空秆率 Y× EER (-1)	产量×穗位高 Y×EH	产量×穗长 Y×EL	产量×生育期 Y×GP	产量×穗粒重 Y× GWE	产量×百粒重 Y× HSW	产量×穗行数 Y×KRN	产量×倒伏率 Y×LR (-1)	产量×株高 Y×PH	产量×茎腐病 Y× SR (-1)	理想指数 Superiority index
DK56	0.38	1.19	0.79	0.96	1.3	1.11	0.5	1.06	1.33	-0.99	1.23	0.25	0.8
衡玉321 HY321	0.94	1.27	1.08	1.6	1.12	1.23	1.33	1.39	1.28	1.67	1.29	0.63	1.24
邯玉9112 HY9112	-0.8	-0.09	0.72	0.47	0.52	0.57	0.42	0.5	0.53	1.54	0.56	0.84	0.48
冀丰118 JF118	2.02	1.13	1.31	0.94	1.29	1.26	1.54	0.91	0.88	-0.02	1.16	-0.46	1.01
冀玉196 JY196	0.28	-0.47	0.75	0.55	0.45	0.24	0.9	0.81	0.62	-0.65	0.36	1.32	0.42
冀玉518 JY518	0.64	-1.98	0.23	-0.13	-0.21	-0.04	-0.3	-0.31	-0.44	0.75	0.14	0.48	-0.1
潞研1502 LY1502	-0.63	-0.11	-1.8	-1.17	-1.04	-1.18	-1.11	-1.15	-1.07	-1.51	-1.11	-2.46	-1.19
潞玉36 LY36	-2.09	-0.11	-0.96	-1.87	-2.01	-2.14	-1.88	-2.12	-2.04	-0.84	-2.05	0.28	-1.53
宿单510 SD510	-0.4	-0.98	0.8	0.13	0.39	0.49	0.28	0.46	0.32	-0.64	0.23	0.5	0.15
唐玉6678 TY6678	-0.11	1.04	-0.28	-1.17	-1.03	-0.79	-0.93	-0.91	-1.18	0.78	-1.12	-1.45	-0.62
郑单958 ZD958	0.65	0.43	-0.8	0.56	0.19	0.13	0.34	0.05	0.2	0.58	0.01	0.36	0.21
中农大626 ZND626	-0.34	-0.23	-0.62	-0.16	-0.51	-0.27	-0.29	-0.18	-0.06	-0.72	-0.21	-0.17	-0.3
中农大696 ZND696	-0.56	-1.12	-1.22	-0.72	-0.47	-0.62	-0.8	-0.49	-0.37	0.05	-0.49	-0.12	-0.57
平均 Mean	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
标准差 Standard Deviation	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1

产量×性状 Yield by trait	Y×BTL(-1)	Y×CS(-1)	Y×EER(-1)	Y×EH	Y×EL	Y×GP	Y×GWE	Y×HSW	Y×KRN	Y×LR(-1)	Y×PH	Y×SR(-1)
产量×秃尖长度Y×BTL(-1)	1
产量×黑粉病Y×CS(-1)	-0.120^ns	1
产量×空秆率Y×EER(-1)	0.209^ns	-0.435^ns	1
产量×穗位高 Y×EH	0.170^ns	-0.337^ns	0.788^**	1
产量×穗长 Y×EL	0.210^ns	-0.222^ns	0.819^**	0.865^**	1
产量×生育期 Y×GP	0.247^ns	-0.247^ns	0.828^**	0.912^**	0.973^**	1
产量×穗粒重Y×GWE	0.236^ns	-0.085^ns	0.744^**	0.878^**	0.914^**	0.953^**	1
产量×百粒重Y×HSW	0.197^ns	-0.087^ns	0.683^**	0.861^**	0.881^**	0.888^**	0.951^**	1
产量×穗行数Y×KRN	-0.473^ns	-0.013^ns	-0.106^ns	0.154^ns	0.079^ns	0.156^ns	0.139^ns	0.110^ns	1
产量×倒伏率Y×LR(-1)	0.141^ns	-0.260^ns	0.761^**	0.739^**	0.875^ns	0.798^**	0.710^**	0.647^*	-0.129^ns	1
产量×株高 Y×PH	0.240^ns	-0.333^ns	0.781^**	0.960^**	0.884^**	0.951^**	0.925^**	0.851^**	0.169^ns	0.739^**	1
产量×茎腐病Y×SR(-1)	0.308^ns	-0.106^ns	0.269^ns	0.284^ns	0.058^ns	0.153^ns	0.050^ns	0.055^ns	-0.087^ns	-0.087^ns	0.159^ns	1

基于GYT双标图分析对黄淮海生态区玉米品种综合评价

Comprehensive evaluation of maize hybrids in the mega-environments of Huanghuaihai plain based on GYT biplot analysis

RichHTML

PDF

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 25

参考文献 51

相关文章 15

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 10

关于本刊

在线期刊

作者中心

相关单位

联系我们

[1]	岳海旺, 韩轩, 魏建伟, 郑书宏, 谢俊良, 陈淑萍, 彭海成, 卜俊周. 基于GYT双标图分析对黄淮海夏玉米区域试验品种综合评价[J]. 作物学报, 2023, 49(5): 1231-1248.
[2]	刘昕萌, 程乙, 刘玉文, 庞尚水, 叶秀芹, 卜艳霞, 张吉旺, 赵斌, 任佰朝, 任昊, 刘鹏. 黄淮海区域现代夏玉米品种产量与资源利用效率的差异分析[J]. 作物学报, 2023, 49(5): 1363-1371.
[3]	宁宁, 莫娇, 胡冰, 李大双, 娄洪祥, 王春云, 白晨阳, 蒯婕, 汪波, 王晶, 徐正华, 李晓华, 贾才华, 周广生. 长江流域不同生态区油菜籽关键品质比较研究[J]. 作物学报, 2023, 49(12): 3315-3327.
[4]	刘秋霞, 董二伟, 黄晓磊, 王劲松, 王媛, 焦晓燕. 不同生态区高粱籽粒产量和品质对氮肥施用的响应[J]. 作物学报, 2023, 49(10): 2766-2776.
[5]	严威凯. 品种选育与评价的原理和方法评述[J]. 作物学报, 2022, 48(9): 2137-2154.
[6]	许乃银, 赵素琴, 张芳, 付小琼, 杨晓妮, 乔银桃, 孙世贤. 基于GYT双标图对西北内陆棉区国审棉花品种的分类评价[J]. 作物学报, 2021, 47(4): 660-671.
[7]	田青兰,李培程,刘利,张强,任万军. 四川不同生态区高产栽培条件下的杂交籼稻的稻米品质[J]. 作物学报, 2015, 41(08): 1257-1268.
[8]	罗俊,许莉萍,邱军,张华,袁照年,邓祖湖,陈如凯,阙友雄. 基于HA-GGE双标图的甘蔗试验环境评价及品种生态区划分[J]. 作物学报, 2015, 41(02): 214-227.
[9]	许乃银,李健. 利用GGE双标图划分长江流域棉花纤维品质生态区[J]. 作物学报, 2014, 40(05): 891-898.
[10]	张俊,李刚华,宋云攀,张巫军,杨从党,王绍华,丁艳锋. 超级稻Y两优2号在两生态区的抗倒性分析[J]. 作物学报, 2013, 39(04): 682-692.
[11]	彭云，赵正雄，李忠环，董艳，陈荣平，王胱霖，王永，杨自控. 不同前茬对烤烟生长、产量和质量的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2010, 36(2): 335-340.
[12]	严威凯. 双标图分析在农作物品种多点试验中的应用[J]. 作物学报, 2010, 36(11): 1805-1819.
[13]	王春娥;赵团结;盖钧镒. 中国栽培和野生大豆豆腐与豆乳得率的遗传变异[J]. 作物学报, 2007, 33(12): 1928-1934.
[14]	姚凤梅;许吟隆;冯强;林而达;延晓冬. CERES-Rice模型在中国主要水稻生态区的模拟及其检验[J]. 作物学报, 2005, 31(05): 545-550.
[15]	李本贵;阎俊;何中虎;李仲来. 用AMMI模型分析作物区域试验中的地点鉴别力[J]. 作物学报, 2004, 30(06): 593-596.