Multiple AMMI models investigation to decipher the genotype by environment (G×E) interaction in sugarcane interspecific hybrids for yield and quality traits

1. Zhao, D. & Li, Y. R. Climate change and sugarcane production: potential impact and mitigation strategies. Int J. Agron 547386 (2015).

2. Upreti, P. & Singh, A. An economic analysis of sugarcane cultivation and its productivity in major sugar producing States of Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra. Eco Affair. 62 (4), 711–718 (2017).

   Google Scholar 

3. Doehlert, D. C., McMullen, M. S. & Hammond, J. J. Genotypic and environmental effects on grain yield and quality of oat grown in North Dakota. Crop Sci. 41, 1066–1072 (2001).

   Google Scholar 

4. Hassani, M., Mahmoudi, S. B., Saremirad, A. & Taleghani, D. Genotype by environment and genotype by yield* trait interactions in sugar beet: analyzing yield stability and determining key traits association. Sci. Rep. 13 (1), 23111 (2023).

   Google Scholar 

5. Meena, M. R. et al. Unraveling the stability of sugarcane clones using multivariate stability models for cane yield and quality under subtropical climates. Sugar Tech 1–12 (2024).

6. Mohammadi, R., Abdulahi, A. & Haghparast, A. M. Interpreting genotype- environment interactions for durum wheat grain yields using non-parametric methods. Euphytica 157, 239–251 (2007).

   Google Scholar 

7. Mattos, P. H. C., Oliveira, R. A. J. 1, Filho, C. B., Daros, E. & Veríssimo, M. A.A. Evaluation of sugarcane genotypes and production environments in Paraná by GGE biplot and AMMI analysis. Crop Breed. Appl. Biotechnol. 13, 83–90 (2013).

   Google Scholar 

8. Regis, J. A. V. B. et al. Adaptability and phenotypic stability of sugarcane clones. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira. 53 (1), 42–52 (2018).

   Google Scholar 

9. Pinthus, M. J. Estimate of genotypic value: a proposed method. Euphytica 22, 121–123 (1973).

   Google Scholar 

10. Francis, T. R. & Kannenberg, L. W. Yield stability studies in short-season maize. A descriptive method for grouping genotypes. Canad J. Plant. Sci. 58, 1029–1034 (1978).

    Google Scholar 

11. Roemer, J. Sinde die ertagdreichen sorten ertagissicherer? Mitt DLG. 32, 87–89 (1917).

    Google Scholar 

12. Eberhart, S. A. & Russel, W. A. Stability parameters for com paring varieties. Crop Sci. 6, 36–40 (1966).

    Google Scholar 

13. Perkins, J. M. & Jinks, J. L. Environmental and genotype-environmental components of variability: III. Multiple lines and crosses. Heredity 23, 339–356 (1968).

    Google Scholar 

14. Myint, K. A. et al. Genetic diversity and selection criteria of MPOB-Senegal oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) germplasm by quantitative traits. Indus Crop Prod. 139, 111558 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

15. Hashim, N. et al. Integrating multivariate and univariate statistical models to investigate genotype–environment interaction of advanced fragrant rice genotypes under rainfed condition. Sustainability 13 (8), 4555 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

16. Tanin, M. J. et al. Ascertaining yield and grain protein content stability in wheat genotypes having the Gpc-B1 gene using univariate, multivariate, and correlation analysis. Front. Genet. 13, 1001904 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

17. Gauch, H. G. Model selection and validation for yield trials with interaction. Biometrics 44 (3), 705–715 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

18. Gauch, H. G. & Zobel, R. W. in AMMI Analysis of Yield trials. In; Genotype by Environment Interaction. 85–122 (eds Kang, H. S. & Gauch, H. G.) (CRC, 1996).

19. Gauch, H. G. & Zobel, R. W. Identifying mega-environments and targeting genotypes. Crop Sci. 37, 311–326 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

20. Yan, W., Hunt, L., Sheng, Q. & Szlavnics, Z. Cultivar evaluation and mega-environment investigation based on the GGE-biplot. Crop Sci. 40, 597–605 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

21. Gauch, H. G., Piepho, H. P. & Annicchiarico, P. Statistical analysis of yield trials by AMMI and GGE: further considerations. Crop Sci. 48, 866–889 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

22. Chuni Lal, Ajay, B. C., Chikani, B. M. & Gor, H. K. AMMI and GGE biplot analysis to evaluate the phenotypic stability of Recombinant inbred lines (RILs) of peanut under mid-season water stress conditions. Indian J. Genet. 79, 420–426 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

23. Ajay, B. C., Aravind, J. & Fiyaz, R. A. Ammistability: additive main effects and multiplicative interaction model stability parameters. Indian J. Genet. 79, 460–466 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

24. Copt, S. & Heritier, S. Robust alternatives to the F-Test in mixed linear models based on MM-estimates. Biometrics 63, 1045–1052 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

25. Lourenco, V. M., Pires, A. M. & Kirst, M. Robust linear regression methods in association studies. Bioinformatics 27, 815–821 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

26. Rodrigues, P. C., Monteiro, A. & Lourenco, V. M. A robust AMMI model for the analysis of genotype-by-environment data. Bioinformatics 32, 58–66 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

27. Ajay, B. C. et al. R-AMMI-LM: Linear-fit Robust-AMMI model to analyze genotype-by environment interactions. Indian J. Genet. 81 (1), 87–92 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

28. Purchase, J. L., Hatting, H. & van Deventer, C. S. Genotype × environment interaction of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in South africa: II. Stability analysis of yield performance. South. Afr. J. Plant. Soil. 17, 101–107 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

29. Zali, H., Farshadfar, E., Sabaghpour, S. H. & Karimizadeh, R. Evaluation of genotype × environment interaction in Chickpea using measures of stability from AMMI model. Ann. Biol. Res. 3, 3126–3136 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

30. Sneller, C. H., Kilgore-Norquest, L. & Dombek, D. Repeatability of yield stability statistics in soybean. Crop Sci. 37, 383–390 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

31. Alarmelu, S., Balakrishnan, R. & Hemaprabha, G. G. × E interaction studies in Multi-location trials of sugarcane using GGE biplot and ANOM analysis. J. Sugarcane Res. 5, 12–23 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

32. Otieno, O. V. & Owuor, N. O. Multivariate genotype and genotype by environment interaction biplot analysis of sugarcane breeding data using R. Int. J. Stat. Distrib. Appl. 5, 22–31 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

33. Rao, A. R. & Prabhakaran, V. T. Use of AMMI in simultaneous selection of genotypes for yield and stability. J. Ind. Soc. Agric. Stat. 59, 76–82 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

34. Farshadfar, E., Mahmodi, N. & Yaghotipoorr, A. AMMI stability value and simultaneous Estimation of yield and yield stability in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L). Aust J. Crop Sci. 5, 1837–1844 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

35. Olivoto, T. et al. Metan: an R package for multi-environment trial analysis. Method Ecol. Evol. 11 (6), 783–789 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

36. Gabriel, K. R. Analysis of meteorological data by means of canonical decomposition and biplots. J. App Met. Climat. 11 (7), 1071–1077 (1978).

    Google Scholar 

37. Ajay, B. C. et al. Modified AMMI stability index (MASI) for stability analysis. Groundn. Newsl. 18, 4–5 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

38. da Silveira, L. C. I. et al. Adaptability and phenotypic stability of sugarcane genotypes in the state of Minas. Gerais Cienc. Rural. 42, 587–594 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

39. Guilly, S., Dumont, T., Thong-Chane, A., Barau, L. & Hoarau, J. Y. Analysis of multi-environment trials (MET) in the sugarcane breeding program of Réunion Island. Euphytica 213 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-017-1994-1 (2017).

40. Dehghani, H., Ebadi, A. & Yousefi, A. Biplot analysis of genotype by environment interaction for barley yield in Iran. Agron. J. 98, 388–393. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2004.0310 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

41. Birhanu, M., Tesfay, M., Nigus, C. & Wolday, K. Stability analysis of finger millet genotypes in moisture stressed areas of Northern Ethiopia. J. Nat. Sci. Res. 6, 2016 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

42. Lakew, T., Dessie, A., Tariku, S. & Abebe, D. Evaluation of performance and yield stability analysis based on AMMI and GGE models in introduced upland rice genotypes tested across Northwest Ethiopia. Int. J. Res. Stud. Agric. Sci. 3, 17–24 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

43. Seyoum, A., Semahegn, Z., Nega, A. & Gebreyohannes, A. AMMI and GGE analysis of G × E and yield stability of finger millet [Eleusine Coracana (L.) Gaertn] genotypes in Ethiopia. Int. J. Trend Res. 6, 379–386 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

44. Tolessa, T. T., Keneni, G., Sefera, T., Jarso, M. & Bekele, Y. Genotype × environment interaction and performance stability for grain yield in field pea (Pisum sativum L.) genotypes. Int. J. Plant. Breed. 7, 116–123 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

45. Singamsetti, A. et al. Genotype × environment interaction and selection of maize (Zea Mays L.) hybrids across moisture regimes. Field Crops Res. 270, 108224 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

46. Rehman, S., Khan, G. S. & Khan, I. Coordinated uniform National varietal trial on sugarcane. Pak J. Agri Res. 13, 136–140 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

47. Javed, M. A. et al. Comparative performance of elite sugarcane clones for yield and quality characteristics. Pak Sugar J. 17, 71–75 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

48. Khan, M. A. et al. Evaluation of new sugarcane genotypes developed through fuzz. Correlation of cane yield and yield components. Pak J. Appl. Sci. 3 (4), 270–273 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

49. Khan, N. U., Kabiraj, R. C., Alam, K. S. & Rahman, M. H. Ratooning potential of BSRI released latest sugarcane varieties in old Himalayan Piedmont plain soils. Bangladesh J. Sugarcane. 29, 115–119 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

50. Hawkins, Douglas, M., Li, L. & Stanley, Y. S. Robust Singular Value Decomposition, National Institute of Statistical Sciences, Technical Report Number 122 (2001).

51. Bissessur, D., Chongm, L. C., Ramnawaz, C. & Ramdoyal, K. Analysing G x E interaction in sugar cane using the additive main effects and multiplicative interaction (AMMI) Model. Proceedings of the International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 24, 506 – 11 (2001).

52. Kilic, H. Additive main effects and multiplicative interactions (AMMI) analysis of grain yield in barley genotypes across environments. J. Agric. Sci. 20 (4), 337–344 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

53. Mohammadi, R. & Amri, A. Comparison of parametric and non-parametric methods for selecting stable and adapted durum wheat genotypes in variable environments. Euphytica 159, 419–432 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

54. Ajay, B. C. et al. Evaluation of genotype × environment interaction and yield stability analysis in peanut under phosphorus stress condition using stability parameters of AMMI model. Agric. Res. 9, 477–486 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

55. Farshadfar, E. Incorporation of AMMI stability value and grain yield in a single non-parametric index (GSI) in bread wheat. Pak J. Biol. Sci. 11, 1791 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

56. Rea, R., Sousa-Vieira, D., Briceno, R., Diaz, A. & George, J. Simultaneous selection indices for yield and stability in sugarcane. Rev. Cienc. Agrícol. 37, 67–77 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

57. Szareski, V. J. et al. Adaptability and stability of wheat genotypes according to the phenotypic index of seed Vigor. Pesq Agropec Bras. 53, 727–735 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

58. Rosado, R. D. S. et al. Genetic parameters and simultaneous selection for adaptability and stability of Macaw palm. Sci. Hortic. 248, 291–296 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

59. Alves, R. S. et al. Selection of Jatropha Curcas families based on Temporal stability and adaptability of genetic values. Ind. Crops Prod. 119, 290–293 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

60. Anna Durai, C., Gopinath, K. & Mahadevaiah & Identification of early and mid-late maturing sugarcane varieties for Western region of Tamil Nadu. J. Sugarcane Res. 10, 32–42 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

Download references