马铃薯产量组分的基因型与环境互作及稳定性

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1006.2020.94089

Abstract

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

Xi-Miao YE,Xin CHENG,Cong-Cong AN,Jian-Long YUAN,Bin YU,Guo-Hong WEN,Gao-Feng LI,Li-Xiang CHENG,Yu-Ping WANG,Feng ZHANG. Genotype × environment interaction and stability of yield components for potato lines[J].Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2020, 46(3): 354-364.

Figures/Tables 6

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 1

Table 2

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

Table 3

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

References 28

[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).

Related Articles 15

[1]	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.
[2]	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.
[3]	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.
[4]	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.
[5]	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.
[6]	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.
[7]	XU Nai-Yin,LI Jian. Ecological Regionalization of Cotton Fiber Quality Based on GGE Biplot in Yangtze River Valley [J]. Acta Agron Sin, 2014, 40(05): 891-898.
[8]	ZENG Yong-Jun,ZHOU Qing-Hong,Lü Wei-Sheng,TAN Xue-Ming,PAN Xiao-Hua,SHI Qing-Hua. Effects of Soil Acidification on the Yield of Double Season Rice [J]. Acta Agron Sin, 2014, 40(05): 899-907.
[9]	TANG Yong-Lu,LI Chao-Su,WU Chun,WU Xiao-Li,HUANG Gang,HE Gang. Yield Component and Dry Matter Accumulation in Wheat Varieties with 9000 kg ha⁻¹ Yield Potential in Sichuan Basin [J]. Acta Agron Sin, 2014, 40(01): 134-142.
[10]	ZHANG Wei,ZHAO Jing,QIU Qiang,WANG Shu-Ming,ZHANG Chun-Bao,YAN Xiao-Yan,ZHAO Li Mei,ZHANG Ming-Hao, ZHANG Wei-Long, and FAN Hui-Mei. Canopy Physiology and Characteristics of Yield Components during Reproductive Stage in Soybean Hybrids [J]. Acta Agron Sin, 2013, 39(12): 2192-2200.
[11]	IANG Pei-Shun1,2,,ZHANG Huan-Xin2,,Lü Xiang-Ling1,HAO Zhuan-Fang2,LI Bo1,LI Ming-Shun2,WANG Hong-Wei,CI Xiao-Ke,ZHANG Shi-Huang,LI Xin-Hai,SHI Zhen-Sheng,WENG Jian-Feng. Analysis of Meta-QTL and Candidate Genes Related to Yield Components in Maize [J]. Acta Agron Sin, 2013, 39(06): 969-978.
[12]	LUO Jun,ZHANG Hua,DENG Zu-Hu,XU Li-Ping,XU Liang-Nian,YUAN Zhao-Nian,QUE You-Xiong. Analysis of Yield and Quality Traits in Sugarcane Varieties (Lines) with GGE-Biplot [J]. Acta Agron Sin, 2013, 39(01): 142-152.
[13]	XU Nai-Yin,ZHANG Guo-Wei,LI Jian,ZHOU Zhi-Guo. Evaluation of Cotton Regional Trial Environments Based on HA-GGE Biplot in the Yangtze River Valley [J]. Acta Agron Sin, 2012, 38(12): 2229-2236.
[14]	YANG Yan-Jun,GUO Ping-Yi,CAO Yu-Feng,WANG Hong-Fu,WANG Yu-Guo,YUAN Xiang-Yang,XING Guo-Fang,SHAO Dong-Hong,QI Xiang,XIE Li-Li,NIE Men-En,GUO Jun,NING Na. Effects of Fertilizer and Planting Density on Yield and Yield Components in Foxtail Millet Hybrid Zhangzagu 5 [J]. Acta Agron Sin, 2012, 38(12): 2278-2285.
[15]	PENG Bo, WANG Yang, LI Yong-Xiang, LIU Cheng, ZHANG Yan, LIU Zhi-Zhai, TAN Wei-Wei, WANG Di, SUN Bao-Cheng, DAN Yun-Su, SONG Yan-Chun, WANG Tian-Yu, LI Yu. Correlation Analysis and Conditional QTL Analysis of Grain Yield and Yield Components in Maize [J]. Acta Agron Sin, 2010, 36(10): 1624-1633.

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

Comments

Recommended 0

No Suggested Reading articles found!

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

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

RichHTML365

PDF