Welcome to Acta Agronomica Sinica，

Acta Agronomica Sinica ›› 2020, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (3): 354-364.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2020.94089

• CROP GENETICS & BREEDING · GERMPLASM RESOURCES · MOLECULAR GENETICS • Previous Articles     Next Articles

Genotype × environment interaction and stability of yield components for potato lines

Xi-Miao YE1,Xin CHENG1,Cong-Cong AN1,Jian-Long YUAN1,Bin YU1,Guo-Hong WEN2,Gao-Feng LI2,Li-Xiang CHENG1,Yu-Ping WANG1,Feng ZHANG1,*()   

  1. 1. Gansu Agricultural University / Gansu Provincial Key Laboratory of Aridland Crop Science / Gansu Key Laboratory of Crop Improvement & Germplasm Enhancement, Lanzhou 730070, Gansu, China;
    2. Gansu Acadamy of Agricultural Sciences / Potato Insititute, Lanzhou 730070, Gansu, China
  • Received:2019-06-21 Accepted:2019-09-26 Online:2020-03-12 Published:2019-10-11
  • Contact: Feng ZHANG E-mail:zhangf@gsau.edu.cn
  • Supported by:
    This study was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China(2017YFD0101905);the National Natural Science Foundation of China(31471433);Gansu High Educational Scientific Special Project(2018C-17);Gansu Province Science and Technology Major Special Projects(17ZD2NA016)

RichHTML365

13

PDF

1300

Abstract:

This study mainly focused on the application of GGE (genotype + genotypes and environment interactions) biplot in potato breeding, to evaluate the productivity, stability and adaptability of yield traits of potato lines in different environments comprehensively, and screen out the excellent lines adapted to different mage-environments. The representativeness and discriminating ability of each test-environment were also evaluated, providing a basis for the selection of test-environment. A total of 101 advanced lines from International Potato Center (CIP) and potato variety Qingshu 9 were planted in Neiguan Town, Lujiagou Town and Wuzhu Town of Gansu province in 2015 and 2016 to measure the plot yield, plot yield of large-sized tubers, plot yield of small-sized tubers, yield per plant, large-sized tuber yield per plant, small-sized tuber yield per plant, tuber number per plant, large-sized tuber number per plant and small-sized tuber number per plant. The genotype and environment interactions were analyzed by the combined analysis of variance and GGE biplot. Except the plot yield of small-sized tubers had no significant difference in genotype and environment interactions effect, all the other yield components had significant differences (P < 0.01) in genotype effect, environmental effect and genotype and environment interaction effect. The square sum of environmental effect on the plot yield, plot yield of large-sized tubers, plot yield of small-sized tubers, yield per plant, large-sized tuber yield per plant, tuber number per plant, and the square sum of genotype and environment interaction effect on the plot yield of small-sized tubers, the large-sized tuber number per plant, and the small-sized tuber number per plant were worth the largest in the square sum of total variance. The most adaptable lines in Lujiagou Town were G86, in Wuzhu Town G65, in Neiguan Town G86. The high-yield lines were G86, G116, and G124; the stable-yield lines were G124, G125, and G10; the high-yielding and stable lines were G86, G116, G124, and Qingshu 9. The lines with more large-sized tuber number per plant were G45, G86, and G67, and the lines with good stability were G67, G116, and G51. The variety Qingshu 9 did not have stable large-sized tuber yield per plant. According to the comprehensive discrimination and representativeness, the order of test-environments were Lujiagou Town in 2016, Lujiagou Town in 2015, Wuzhu Town in 2015, Wuzhu Town in 2016, Neiguan Town in 2015, and Neiguan Town in 2016. GGE model can intuitively display the results in the genotype-location-year framework, and objectively evaluate the productivity, stability and adaptability of tested lines, as well as the representativeness and discriminating ability of test-environment. According to the comprehensive evaluation of GGE model, the high-yielding and stable lines were G116, G124, G125, G122, and Qingshu 9, and the high-yielding and unstable lines were G86, G10, G121, G106, G107, and G72. The most ideal mage-environment is Lujiagou Town, and Wuzhu Town is the test-environment with the strongest discriminating ability for varieties identification.

Key words: yield component, GGE biplot, multi-years and sites, pilot evaluation

Table 1

102 introduced potato advanced lines from CIP"

品系编号
Line number		 CIP编号
CIP entry		 品系编号
Line number		 CIP编号
CIP entry		 品系编号
Line number		 CIP编号
CIP entry
G1 CIP 381381.13 G45 CIP 385561.124 G92 CIP 397099.6
G3 CIP 391583.25 G46 CIP 388676.1 G93 CIP 397100.9
G4 CIP 392617.54 G48 CIP 390478.9 G94 CIP 397196.3
G5 CIP 392634.52 G49 CIP 391207.2 G95 CIP 397196.8
G8 CIP 393227.66 G50 CIP 391382.18 G96 CIP 397197.9
G9 CIP 393228.67 G51 CIP 392781.1 G98 CIP 388611.22
G10 CIP 393371.164 G52 CIP 392797.22 (青薯9号Qingshu 9) G99 CIP 388615.22
G11 CIP 391004.18 G53 CIP 392822.3 G100 CIP 389468.3
G12 CIP 392657.171 G54 CIP 392973.48 G101 CIP 390637.1
G13 CIP 393280.64 G56 CIP 394034.65 G102 CIP 391180.6
G14 CIP 391047.34 G57 CIP 394034.7 G104 CIP 391724.1
G15 CIP 391058.175 G58 CIP 394579.36 G105 CIP 392032.2
G16 CIP 393085.5 G59 CIP 394600.52 G106 CIP 392740.4
G17 CIP 398192.213 G61 CIP 394613.139 G107 CIP 392745.7
G18 CIP 398098.119 G62 CIP 394613.32 G108 CIP 392759.1
G19 CIP 398098.203 G63 CIP 394614.117 G109 CIP 393613.2
G21 CIP 398180.289 G64 CIP 394881.8 G110 CIP 393615.6
G22 CIP 398180.292 G65 CIP 395186.6 G112 CIP 397030.31
G23 CIP 398180.612 G67 CIP 395195.7 G113 CIP 397035.26
G25 CIP 398203.509 G68 CIP 395196.4 G114 CIP 302428.20
G27 CIP 398208.33 G70 CIP 395432.51 G115 CIP 302476.108
G30 CIP 301024.14 G71 CIP 395434.1 G116 CIP 302499.30
G31 CIP 301029.18 G72 CIP 395436.8 G118 CIP 304350.100
G32 CIP 301040.63 G74 CIP 396311.1 G119 CIP 304350.118
G33 CIP 300046.22 G77 CIP 397014.2 G120 CIP 304350.95
G35 CIP 300054.29 G79 CIP 397029.21 G121 CIP 304371.67
G36 CIP 300056.33 G81 CIP 397039.51 G122 CIP 304383.41
G37 CIP 300063.4 G82 CIP 397044.25 G123 CIP 304383.80
G39 CIP 300072.1 G84 CIP 397065.2 G124 CIP 304387.39
G40 CIP 300093.14 G85 CIP 397067.2 G125 CIP 304405.47
G41 CIP 300099.22 G86 CIP 397069.5 G127 CIP 397077.16
G42 CIP 300101.11 G87 CIP 397073.15 G128 CIP 391919.3
G43 CIP 379706.27 G88 CIP 397078.12 G129 CIP 391930.1
G44 CIP 385499.11 G91 CIP 397098.12 G131 CIP 394906.6

Table 2

Basic information of tested locations"

试点
Location		 试点编号
Location code		 海拔
Altitude
(m)		 年降水量
Annual precipitation (mm)		 年日照时数
Annual sunshine
(h)		 年平均温度
Mean annual
temperature (℃)		 无霜期
Frostless period (d)
五竹镇 Wuzhuzhen WZ 2450 540 2462 3.5 145
内官镇 Neiguanzhen NG 2080 390 2050 6.2 141
鲁家沟镇 Lujiagouzhen LJG 1898 220 2780 6.3 160

Table 3

Analysis of variance for yield traits in potato lines"

性状
Trait		 变异来源
Source of variation		 自由度
df		 平方和
Sum of square		 均方
Mean squares		 F检验
F-test		 显著性
Significance
小区产量
Plot yield		 基因型G 101 6142.832 60.8201 26.97 < 0.001
环境E 5 12098.734 1228.566 276.57 < 0.001
互作G × E 505 11907.641 23.579 5.31 < 0.001
残差Residual 1224 5437.244 4.442
总变异Total 1835 35586.452
小区大薯产量
Plot yield of large-sized tuber		 基因型G 101 933.319 9.2408 8.29 < 0.001
环境E 5 7671.285 1534.257 20.39 < 0.001
互作G × E 505 7585.699 15.021 1.64 < 0.001
残差Residual 1224 11207.720 9.157
总变异Total 1835 27398.024
小区小薯产量
Plot yield of small-sized tuber		 基因型G 101 1323.103 13.100 1.71 < 0.001
环境E 5 2806.794 561.359 73.31 < 0.001
互作G × E 505 1867.107 3.697 0.48 1
残差Residual 1224 9372.213 7.657
总变异Total 1835 15369.218
单株产量
Yield of tuber per plant		 基因型G 101 119.526 1.1834 5.30 < 0.001
环境E 5 198.688 39.7376 177.82 < 0.001
互作G × E 505 174.808 0.3462 1.55 < 0.001
残差Residual 1224 273.529 0.2235
总变异Total 1835 766.550
单株大薯产量
Yield of large-sized tubers per plant		 基因型G 101 119.390 1.1821 5.38 < 0.001
环境E 5 183.742 36.7485 167.16 < 0.001
互作G × E 505 169.916 0.3365 1.53 < 0.001
残差Residual 1224 269.091 0.2198
总变异Total 1835 742.139
单株小薯产量
Yield of small-sized tubers per plant		 基因型G 101 2.882 0.0285 5.79 < 0.001
环境E 5 0.352 0.0704 14.28 < 0.001
互作G × E 505 5.948 0.0118 2.39 < 0.001
残差Residual 1224 6.029 0.0049
总变异Total 1835 15.211
单株结薯数
Number of tuber per plant		 基因型G 101 2978.502 29.490 4.32 < 0.001
环境E 5 9208.894 1841.779 270.03 < 0.001
互作G × E 505 7497.026 14.846 2.18 < 0.001
残差Residual 1224 8348.500 6.821
总变异Total 1835 28032.922
单株大薯数
Number of large-sized tubers per plant		 基因型G 101 475.476 4.708 5.54 < 0.001
环境E 5 2510.065 502.014 21.21 < 0.001
互作G × E 505 4349.834 8.614 1.92 < 0.001
残差Residual 1224 5487.667 4.483
总变异Total 1835 12822.982
单株小薯数
Number of small-sized tubers per plant		 基因型G 101 2434.490 24.104 5.51 < 0.001
环境E 5 270.209 54.042 12.35 < 0.001
互作G × E 505 4347.791 8.609 1.97 < 0.001
残差Residual 1224 5354.333 4.374
总变异Total 1835 12406.824

Fig. 1

Analysis of yield traits adaptability by the GGE biplot A: the yield of plot; B: the plot yield of large-sized tuber; C: the plot yield of small-sized tuber; D: the yield per plant; E: the yield of large-sized tubers per plant; F: the yield of small-sized tubers per plant."

Fig. 2

Mean yield performance and stability of potato lines by the GGE biplot A: the yield of plot; B: the plot yield of large-sized tuber; C: the plot yield of small-sized tuber; D: the yield per plant; E: the yield of large-sized tubers per plant; F: the yield of small-sized tubers per plant."

Fig. 3

Lines ranking of comprehensive evaluation, environmental representativeness and the discriminating by the GGE biplot A: the yield of plot; B: the plot yield of large-sized tuber; C: the plot yield of small-sized tuber; D: the yield per plant; E: the yield of large-sized tubers per plant; F: the yield of small-sized tubers per plant."

[1] Zaheer K, Akhta M H . Potato production, usage, and nutrition-a review. Crit Rev Food Sci, 2014,56:711-721.
[2] 王玉萍, 隋景航, 梁延超, 卢潇 . 甘肃省两个生态区马铃薯加工品质差异和加工品系筛选. 甘肃农业大学学报, 2016,51(5):39-45.
Wang Y P, Sui J H, Liang Y C, Lu X . Screening for potato processing lines with tuber qulity index from two ecoregions. J Gansu Agric Univ, 2016,51(5):39-45 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[3] Mulema J M K, Adipala E, Olanya O M . Yield stability analysis of late blight resistant potato selections. Crop Sci, 2016,56:1645-1661.
[4] Padi F K . Relationship between stress tolerance and grain yield stability in cowpea. J Agric Sci, 2004,142:431-443.
[5] Bednarz C W, Bridges D C, Brown S M . Analysis of cotton yield stability across population densities. Semigroup Forum, 2000,92:128-135.
[6] Fan X M, Kang M S, Chen H M . Yield stability of maize hybrids evaluated in multi-environment trials in Yunnan, China. Agron J, 2007,99:220-228.
[7] Mekbib F . Yield stability in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) genotypes. Euphytica, 2003,130:147-153.
[8] Aastveit A H, Martens H . ANOVA interactions interpreted by partial least squares regression. Biometrics, 1986,42:829-844.
[9] Eberhart S A, Russel W A . Stability parameters for comparing varieties. Crop Sci, 1966,6:36-40.
[10] Blouin D C, Webster E P, Bond J A . On the analysis of combined experiments. Weed Technol, 2015,25:165-169.
[11] Kang M S . Simultaneous Selection for yield and stability in crop performance trials: consequences for growers. Agron J, 1993,85:754-757.
[12] Gauch H G . Statistical analysis of yield trials by AMMI and GGE. Crop Sci, 2006,46:1488-1500.
[13] Yan W K, Fetch J M , Fregeau-reid J. Genotype × location interaction patterns and testing strategies for oat in the Canadian. Prairies, 2011,51:1903-1914.
[14] Yan W K, Kang M S, Ma B L . GGE biplot vs. AMMI analysis of genotype-by-environment data. Crop Sci, 2007,47:641-653.
[15] Nzuve F, Githiri S, Mulunya D M . Analysis of genotype × environment interaction for grain yield in maize hybrids. J Agric Sci, 2013,5:75-85.
[16] Soto B J, Duquid S, Booker H . Genomic regions underlying agronomic traits in linseed (Linum usitatissimum L.) as revealed by association mapping. J Integr Plant Biol, 2014,56:75-87.
[17] Murphy S E, Lee E A, Woodrow L . Genotype × environment interaction and stability for is oflavone content in Soybean. Crop Sci, 2009,49:1313-1321.
[18] Wachira F, Ngetich W, Omolo J . Genotype × environment interactions for tea yields. Euphytica, 2002,127:289-297.
[19] Burgueño J, Campos G D L, Weigel K. Genomic prediction of breeding values when modeling genotype × environment interaction using pedigree and dense molecular markers. Crop Sci, 2012,52:707-712.
[20] Phuke R M, Anuradha K, Radhika K, Jabeen F, Anuradha G, Ramesh T, Hariprasanna K, Mehtre S P, Deshpande S P, Anil G, Das R R, Rathore A, Hash T, Reddy B V S, Kumar A A. Genotype × environment interaction, correlation, and GGE Biplot analysis for grain Iron and zinc concentration and other agronomic traits in RIL population of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench). Front Plant Sci, 2017,5:712-716.
[21] Zolfaghar S, Bahram H, Dadkhodaie A . Dissection of genotype × environment interactions for mucilage and seed yield in Plantago species: application of AMMI and GGE biplot analyses. PLoS One, 2018,13:e0196095.
[22] 张永成, 田丰 . 马铃薯试验研究方法. 北京: 中国农业科学技术出版社, 2007. pp 90-93.
Zhang Y C, Tian F. Potato Experiment Test Research Method. Beijing: China Agriculture Science and Technology Press, 2007. pp 90-93(in Chinese).
[23] 严威凯 . 农作物品种试验数据管理与分析. 北京: 中国农业科学技术出版社, 2015. pp 133-146.
Yan W K. Crop Variety Trials Data Management and Analysis. Beijing: China Agriculture Science and Technology Press, 2015. pp 133-146(in Chinese).
[24] Dia M, Weherr T C, Hasssel R, Price D S . Genotype × environment interaction and stability analysis for watermelon fruit yield in the United States. Crop Sci, 2016,56:1645-1661.
[25] Wang R H, Hu D H, Zheng H Q, Yun S . Genotype × environmental interaction by AMMI and GGE biplot analysis for the provenances of Michelia chapensis in South China. J For Res, 2016,27:659-664.
[26] Muthoni J, Shimelis H, Melis R . Genotype × environment interaction and stability of potato tuber yield and bacterial wilt resistance in Kenya Am J Potato Res, 2015,92:367-378.
[27] 严威凯 . 双标图分析在农作物品种多点试验中的应用. 作物学报, 2010,36:1805-1819.
Yan W K . Optimal use of biplots in analysis of multi-location variety test data. Acta Agron Sin, 2010,36:1805-1819(in Chinese with English abstract).
[28] 严威凯, 盛庆来, 胡跃高, Hunt L A. GGE叠图法: 分析品种火环境互作模式的理想方法. 作物学报, 2001,27:21-28.
Yan W K, Sheng Q L, Hu Y G, Hunt L A . GGE Biplot: an ideal tool for studying genotype by environment interaction of regional yield trial data. Acta Agron Sin, 2001,27:21-28 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[1] Wang Zhuang-Zhuang, Wu Zi-Jun, Zhang Yong-Xin, Zhang Xin-Yuan, Yuan Li-Xue, Chen Ru-Xue, Liu Shi-Ju, Duan Jian-Zhao, Feng Wei, Wang Tong-Chao, Wang Yong-Hua. Optimized water-nitrogen synergy enhances winter wheat yield and nitrogen use efficiency in clay-loam fluvo-aquic soils of southeastern Henan, China [J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2026, 52(5): 1501-1521.
[2] LI Yi-Qian, XU Shou-Zhen, LIU Ping, MA Qi, XIE Bin, CHEN Hong. Genome-wide association study of yield components using a 40K SNP array and identification of a stable locus for boll weight in upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) [J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2025, 51(8): 2128-2138.
[3] LI Bing-Lin, YE Xiao-Lei, XIAO Hong, XIAO Guo-Bin, LYU Wei-Sheng, LIU Jun-Quan, REN Tao, LU Zhi-Feng, LU Jian-Wei. Effects of magnesium fertilization rates on rapeseed yield, magnesium uptake, and yield loss caused by frost damage [J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2025, 51(7): 1850-1860.
[4] MENG Zi-Zhen, LIU Chen, SHENG Qian-Nan, XIONG Zhi-Hao, FANG Ya-Ting, ZHAO Jian, YU Qiu-Hua, WANG Kun-Kun, LI Xiao-Kun, REN Tao, LU Jian-Wei. Effects of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium fertilizer application on the yield increase of winter oilseed rape and the degree of yield reduction due to freezing stress [J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2025, 51(4): 1037-1049.
[5] HU Liang-Liang, ZHOU Hong-Mei, WANG Xiao-Lei, WANG Su-Hua, LI Cai-Ju, WEI Yun-Shan, WANG Li-Xia, CHENG Xu-Zhen, CHEN Hong-Lin. Analysis of genotype × environment interaction and stability of yield-related traits in adzuki bean (Vigna angularis) [J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2025, 51(10): 2581-2594.
[6] WANG Fei-Er, GUO Yao, LI Pan, WEI Jin-Gui, FAN Zhi-Long, HU Fa-Long, FAN Hong, HE Wei, YIN Wen, CHEN Gui-Ping. Compensation mechanism of increased maize density on yield with water and nitrogen reduction supply in oasis irrigation areas [J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2024, 50(6): 1616-1627.
[7] XU Nai-Yin, JIN Shi-Qiao, JIN Fang, LIU Li-Hua, XU Jian-Wen, LIU Feng-Ze, REN Xue-Zhen, SUN Quan, XU Xu, PANG Bin-Shuang. Genetic similarity and its detection accuracy analysis of wheat varieties based on SNP markers [J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2024, 50(4): 887-896.
[8] SHAO Yang, GUO Yan-Ping, ZHOU Bing-Yue, ZHANG Feng, ZHANG Xin-Ming, WANG Yu-Ping. Analysis of genotype × environment interaction and stability of yield components in faba bean lines [J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2024, 50(1): 149-160.
[9] WANG Lyu, CUI Yue-Zhen, WU Yu-Hong, HAO Xing-Shun, ZHANG Chun-Hui, WANG Jun-Yi, LIU Yi-Xin, LI Xiao-Gang, QIN Yu-Hang. Effects of rice stalks mulching combined with green manure (Astragalus smicus L.) incorporated into soil and reducing nitrogen fertilizer rate on rice yield and soil fertility [J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2022, 48(4): 952-961.
[10] DING Yong-Gang, CHEN Li, DONG Jin-Xing, ZHU Min, LI Chun-Yan, ZHU Xin-Kai, DING Jin-Feng, GUO Wen-Shan. Characteristics of yield components, nitrogen accumulation and translocation, and grain quality of semi-winter cultivars with high-yield and high-efficiency [J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2022, 48(12): 3144-3154.
[11] DING Yong-Gang,LI Fu-Jian,WANG Ya-Hua,TANG Xiao-Qing,DU Tong-Qing,ZHU Min,LI Chun-Yan,ZHU Xin-Kai,DING Jin-Feng,GUO Wen-Shan. Characteristics of yield components and population quality in high-nitrogen- utilization wheat cultivars [J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2020, 46(4): 544-556.
[12] WANG Yi-Fan, QIN Ya-Zhou, FENG Fu-Xue, ZHAO Cai, YU Ai-Zhong, LIU Chang, CHAI Qiang*. Synergistic Effect of Root Interaction and Density on Yield and Yield Components of Wheat/Maize Intercropping System [J]. Acta Agron Sin, 2017, 43(05): 754-762.
[13] DING Jin-Feng, HUANG Zheng-Jin, YUAN Yi, ZHU Xin-Kai, LI Chun-Yan, PENG Yong-Xin, GUO Wen-Shan. Population Quality and Photosynthetic Characteristics after Anthesis in Yangmai 20 with Yield Potential of 9000 kg ha−1 in Rice–Wheat Rotation System [J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2015, 41(07): 1086-1097.
[14] DAI Jian-Long,LI Zhen-Huai,LUO Zhen,LU He-Quan,TANG Wei,ZHANG Dong-Mei,LI Wei-Jiang,XIN Cheng-Song,DONG He-Zhong*. Effects of Precision Seeding without Thinning Process on Yield and Yield Components of Cotton [J]. Acta Agron Sin, 2014, 40(11): 2040-2045.
[15] XU Nai-Yin,LI Jian. Identification of Ideal Test Environments for Multiple Traits Selection in Cotton Regional Trials [J]. Acta Agron Sin, 2014, 40(11): 1936-1945.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!
Add: No. 80 Xueyuan South Rd, Beijing 100081, P. R. China E-mail: zwxb301@caas.cn
Supported by Beijing Magtech Co.Ltd