Current Opinion in Agriculture

Curr. Opin. Agric.

2013 2(1), 2024.



Analysis of yield stability in multi-environment trials of
barley (Hordeum vulgar L.) genotypes using AMMI
model

M Mohammadi
1
, R Karimizadeh
1
, AA Noorinia
2
, H Ghojogh
2
, T Hosseinpour
3
, GR
Khalilzadeh
4
, A Mehraban
5
, M Roustaii
6
, M Hasanpor Hosni
7


1
Cereal breeder, Dryland Agricultural Research Institute, Gachsaran, Iran.
2
Cereal breeder, Agricultural and national Resources Research center of Golestan Province, Gorgan, Iran.
3
Cereal breeder, Agricultural and national Resources Research center of Lorestann Province, Khorramabad, Iran.
4
Barley breeder, Agricultural and national Resources Research center of West Azarbayjan Province, Oromiieh, Iran.
5
Barley breeder, Agricultural and national Resources Research center of Ardabil Province, Moghan, Iran.
6
Wheat breeder, Dryland Agricultural Research Institute, Maragheh, Iran.
7
Cereal pathologist, Dryland Agricultural Research Institute, Maragheh, Iran.
*Corresponding author's E-mail: mohtashammohammadi@yahoo.com


Abstract

Analysis of multi-environment trials for investigation of genotype environment (GE) interaction for yield performance across test
environments, and selection of the most favorable genotypes is an important issue in barley breeding programs. The multi-environmental
trials were conducted at test locations; Gachsaran, Gonbad, Khoramabad and Moghan, for three years. Sixteen barley genotypes
including 14 new improved lines, and the two cultivars; Izeh and local check, were cultivated in randomized complete block design with
four replicates. An AMMI model with AMMI1 and AMMI2 biplots were used to determine the mega-environments and wining
genotypes. The results of combined analysis of variance indicated main effects of genotypes and environments as well as GE interaction
effects were significant. The results of the polygon view of AMMI2 biplot verified relatively the results of AMMI1 and AMMI2 biplots
and showed that there of test locations (Gonbad, Khoramabad and Moghan) are three main mega-environments in barley producing areas.
Regarding this pattern, genotypes G1, G6, G13 and G16 were as the most favorable genotypes, had specific adaptability for these mega-
environments. The best recommended genotypes according to the this investigation were G6 (3591 kg ha
-1
) for location Khoramabad,
G16 (3192 kg ha
-1
) for location Gonbad, and G13 (3119 kg ha
-1
) for location Moghan which had high mean yield and was the most stable
for related mega- environments.

Keywords: Barley, Genotype environment interaction, Stability analysis

Abbreviations: AMMI, Additive main effects and multiplicative interaction; GE, genotype by environmental interaction


Introduction

Genotype by environment (GE) interaction is of major
importance, because it provides information about the effects of
test environments on genotype performance and plays an
important key role for assessment of performance yield stability
of the new breeding genotype. Increasing genetic gain in yield
performance is possible in part fromnarrowing the adaptation
of genotypes and so maximizing yield in particular
environments are described by GE interaction (Sabaghnia et al.
2012b). The GE interaction is a complex phenomenon which is
involves environmental conditions such as agroecological,
climate and agronomic factors as well as genetic factors which
are determine the plant growth and development
(Annicchiarico, 2002).
Some types of GE interaction (additive or non-crossover) will
lead to different variances at each environment but can be
managed during data analysis (Annicchiarico, 2002), but some
others (crossover or non- additive) can be a practical problem
for improvement programs as it shows that genotypes may have
specific environment preferences (Truberg and Huehn, 2000).
Also, from other aspect, some GE interaction may be
predictable such as for genotypes growing in their native
environment (Wu and Ying, 2004) while other GE interaction is
not predictable and may reduce across environment heritability
and genetic gain (Raymond, 2011). For exploration of GE
interaction, some statistical methods have been suggested in
yield performance analysis of crop genotypes. These include
partitioning of GE interaction variance (Wricke, 1962), the
coefficient of linear regression model (Finlay and Wilkinson,
1963), deviation fromlinear regression model (Eberhart and
Russell, 1966), nonparametric statistics (Huehn, 1990;
Sabaghnia et al. 2006), and multivariate methods such as the
additive main effects and multiplicative interaction (AMMI)
model (Zobel et al. 1988).
In many aspects of barley research and especially in its genetic
improvement, the analysis of GE interaction is of primary
importance (Dehghani et al. 2008). This issue is particularly
critical in arid and semi-arid areas, where barley planted under
the harmful influence of drought and high temperatures, and
inter-annual changes in climate factors can occur (Voltas et al.
1999). Therefore, experimental investigation requires to be
performed via multi-environment trials in order to detection of
the major factors that are responsible for genotype stability (De
Analysis of yield stability of barley using AMMI model


21
Lacy et al. 1996). Barley landraces have an important source of
plant material in poor environments, as they are often grown in
stressful environmental conditions with zero to limited
agronomic input (Ceccarelli and Grando, 2000), and so these
materials must be used in breeding programs. Dehghani et al.
(2008) studied the yield stability of several genotypes with
different origins and found that genotypes with broad genetic
background are more useful form adaptation and stability
aspects.

Table 1. Geographical properties of test locations.
Longitude
Latitude
Altitude
(m)
Soil
Type
Rainfall
(mm)
Location
50 50 E
30 20 N
710 Regosols 460.8 Gachsaran
55 12 E
37 16 N
45 Regosols 367.5 Gonbad
23 26 E
48 17 N
1148 Regosols 433.1 Khoramabad
48 03E
39 01N
32 Cambisols 271.2 Moghan

The major objective of this study is to understand the adaptation
of barley genotypes using AMMI analysis to evaluate the
significance of the GE interaction on seed yield, identify mega-
environments, determine the best performing genotype for each
mega-environment, and discuss the implication of the GE
interaction to barley breeding.

Material and methods

The barley multi-environmental trials were conducted at four
test locations; Gachsaran, Gonbad, Khoramabad and Moghan,
for three years. These test locations were chosen because they
show main barley growing regions characterized by some
differences in soil fertility and climatic conditions (Table 1).
The trial of Moghan location at third year was destroyed and so
it is deleted fromtotal analysis and the number of environments
decreased to eleven. Sixteen barley genotypes (14 new
improved lines, and the two cultivars (Izeh and local check)
were used (Table 2). Trials performed in a randomized
complete block design with four replicates. Each experimental
unit consisted of a 7.35 m2 plot (six rows 7 mlong with 0.175
m between rows).
A combined ANOVA was done to test significant differences
among genotypes and environments due to non-significance of
Bartletts homogeneity of variance test. The AMMI model
(Gauch, 1988) was performed using blow formula:

N
n
ij jn in n j i ij
e g Y
1

where
ij
Y is the yield of the ith genotype in the jth
environment; is the general mean;
i
g and
j
e are the
genotype and environment deviations fromthe general mean,

Table 2. The properties of 16 barley genotypes.
Pedigree or Name Yield Code
Wi2291/Wi2269//ER/Apm
ICB86-0629-0AP-2APH-0AP
3805 G1
Pld10342//Cr.115/Por/3/Bahtim/4/Ds/Apro/5/wi2291/
Wi2291/Wi2269/7/Wi2291/Wi2291/Wi2291/Wi2269//
Wi2291/Bgs ICB94-0402-0AP
3690 G2
7028/2759/3/6982//Ds/Apro/4/H272//Wi2198/
ID601810/5/Mazurka ICB95 0437-0AP
3474 G3
Zanbaca/3/H.Spont.21-3/Arar 84//Wi2291/Bgs
ICB94-0314-0AP
3393 G4
Hml/WI2291/4/Zanbaca/3/Er/Apm/Lignee131
ICB94 0587-0AP
3165 G5
Er/Apm//Cerise/3/lignee131/3/Er/Apm
ICB83-1985-2AP-0AP
3591 G6
Lignee 124/Hml 024
ICB 82-0757-10AP-0AP-23AP-0AP
3367 G7
Alanda/Harma01/7/Gustoe/6/M6476/Bon//Jo/
York/3/Ms/Colt/As46/4/Hy3480/Astrix/5/NK1272
ICB950791-0AP-0AP
3483 G8
IPA7//As46/Rhn-05
ICB95 0162-0AP-0AP
3347 G9
Weahll/Wi2291/Bgs/3/Er/Apm//Ac253
ICB 94 0707-0AP-0AP
3561 G10
Roho Alger/Ceres 362 1-1/3/Kantara/4/Bowman
ICB93 0791-21AP-0AP
3549 G11
Mari/Aths2//Avt/Attiki/3/Aths/Lignee 686
ICB 91 0368-3AP-0TR-3AP-0AP
3440 G12
IPA 265/PA 7
ICB95 0127-0AP
3119 G13
Lignee 131/ArabiAbiad/3/Chiem/An57//Albert
3488 G14
Izeh
3488 G15
Local check
3192 G16

respectively;
n
is the eigenvalue of the IPC (interaction
principal component) analysis axis n;
in
and
jn
are the
genotype and environment eigenvectors for axis n; n is the
number of IPCs retained in the model and
ij
is the residual
component. A special F-test as FRatio (Cornelius et al. 1992)
was used to determine of significant numbers of IPCs in AMMI
model. The AMMI1 and AMMI2 biplots were drawn and used
to determine the mega-environments and wining genotypes. All
statistical analyses were carried out using GENSTAT 12.0
(VSN International, 2010) and SAS 6.12 (SAS, 1996), which
calculate different stability statistics.

Results and discussion

The results of combined analysis of variance indicated main
effects of genotypes and environments were significant at P <
0.01 (Table 2). Also, the GE interaction effect was significant at
P <0.01 (Table 2) and explained only 1.8% of total variance.
The high significant GE interaction would result in different
ranking of barley genotypes (crossover interaction), and
complicate selection because it measures the degree to which
performance in one environment fails to predict performance in
the other (Baker, 1988). Of the total variance, a larger portion
was described by the environment main effect (94.2%) while
the genotypes accounted about 4% of total variation (GE+E+G).
When no distinct source of the GE interaction can be found,
selection of genotypes with broad adaptation would be expected
to yield dependably across a wide range of environments
Mohammadi et al.


22
(Annicchiarico, 2002; Sabaghnia et al., 2012b), and grouping of
genotypes with minimal GE was relatively successful.

Table 3. Combined analysis of variance and AMMI analysis for
grain yield of barley genotypes.
% of GE
F
Ratio

Mean Squares DF SOV
35222228.3
**
10 Environment (E)
702331.2 33 Replication/E
1489296.7
**
15 Genotype (G)
676638.1
**
150 GE
37.2 3.31
**
1572839.2 24 IPC1
60.0 2.57
**
1040859.6 22
IPC2
2182573 104
Residual
153069.3 495 Error
Sources of variation
Degrees of freedom
**
Significant at the 0.01 probability level

The GE interaction of barley multi-environment trials was
further analyzed with the AMMI model which AMMI2 model
including IPC1 and IPC2 accounted for 60% of the GE
variation in studied barley genotypes. Table 2 shows the two
IPC axes were significant by the FRatio (Cornelius et al., 1992).
Therefore, it could be concluding that the AMMI model
revealed that there was not a more complex interaction of GE
and which it could facilitate graphical visualization of the
genotypes in low dimensions (Gauch et al., 2008).
Figure 1 indicates the AMMI1 biplot (mean yield versus IPC1
scores) for the barley multi-environment experiments and
provides a good explanation of the data pattern, even though it
misses some additional information in IPC2 (Gauch, 2006).
Genotypes G4 and G12 had the low IPC1 scores and moderate
mean yield which is reflected static concept of yield stability. In
other word, these genotypes and relatively similar ones (G2,
G3, G9, G10, G11, G12 and G15) could be recommended for
most of the test environments with regarding broad adaptability.
In most multi-environment trials, a genotype is regarded to be
most stable if its performance is relatively constant across
different test environments. According to Becker and Leon
(1988) static concept of stability (biological type), a stable
genotype is the one with minimal variance across different
environments.

Fig. 1. The AMMI1 model biplot for yield data from 16 barley
genotypes grown at 11 environments which showing genotypes
positions.
Fig. 2. The AMMI2 model biplot for yield data from 16 barley
genotypes grown at 11 environments which showing genotypes
positions.

However, static concept has received little attention from plant
breeders and especially agronomists as they prefer genotypes
with high mean yields in favorable environments (Becker,
1981). Genotype with a constant high yield referred to as
dynamic stability concept is the preferred option in commercial
plant breeding (Flores et al., 1998).
Despite the relatively low potential of barley grain yield at
semi-arid areas, G1 had the relatively highest mean yield,
implying that it had good dynamic stability concept. There were
two mega-environments including ME-A as KH1, KH2, GA2,
GA3 and GO3 with wining genotypes G1 and G6; and ME-B as
the other remained test environments with wining genotype
G13 (Fig. 1). Similar findings were reported by Sabaghnia et al.
(2008) in lentil, and Karimizadeh et al. (2012) in durum wheat
and Sabaghnia et al. (2012a) in durum wheat which mentioned
that static stability may be more useful than dynamic in a wide
range of conditions. The IPC1 often correlates highly with PC2
from GGE biplot model and so the above conclusion could be
expected from GGE biplot methodology (Gauch et al. 2008).
Figure 2 indicates the AMMI2 biplot (IPC1 versus IPC2 scores)
and provides a good explanation of the data pattern, regarding
first two IPCs. Genotype G10 had the low IPC scores with
relatively moderate mean yield and is reflected static concept of
yield stability (Fig. 2). In other word, this genotype could be
recommended for most of the test environments with regarding
broad adaptability. There were four sectors as mega-
environments including; ME-A as GA2, GA3, KH1 and KH2
with wining genotype G1; ME-B as GO1 and GO3 with wining
genotypes G3; ME-C as KH3 with wining genotype G14; and
ME-D as MO1, MO2, GA2 and GO2 with wining genotype
G13 (Fig. 2).
Polygon view of AMMI2 biplot has been used to identify
which-wins-where patterns in lentil multi-environmental
trials data analysis. In Figure 3, lines are drawn to connect the
furthest genotypes in the biplot and then a line is drawn
perpendicular to that side of the polygon so as to pass through
the origin. The furthest genotype is the best performer in the
environment included in that sector. There are six rays in Fig. 3
which divide the biplot into six sectors, and the test
environments fall into four of them. The test environment GH2
fell into sector 1 and the vertex genotype for this sector was G1,
suggesting that the most favorable genotype for this test
environment was G9. The test environments KH1, KH2 and
Analysis of yield stability of barley using AMMI model


23


Fig. 3. The polygon of AMMI2 model biplot for yield data from 16
barley genotypes grown at 11 environments which showing
genotypes positions.

GA3 fell into sector 2 and the vertex genotype for this sector
was G6. This genotype was better than the other genotypes
which fell into sector 2 (such as genotypes G7 and G8). The test
environments GO1 and GO3 fell into sector 3 and the vertex
genotype for this sector was G16. This genotype was better than
genotypes G2 and G3 which fells into sector 3. The test
environments MO1, MO2, GO2, GA1 and KH3 fell into sector
4 and the vertex genotype for this sector was G13. This
genotype was better than genotypes G10, G11, G12, G14 and
G15 which fells into sector 4.
The results of the polygon view of AMMI2 biplot verified
relatively the results of Figures 1 and 2. Therefore, it could be
concluding that, there of test locations (GO: Gonbad; KH:
Khoramabad; MO: Moghan) are three main mega-environments
in barley producing areas. The response of location Gachsaran
in three years was not constant and every year of this trial
located in different main mega-environment. Therefore, Fig. 3
suggests that there exist at least, three possible barley mega-
environments in semi-arid areas of Iran. However, this mega-
environment pattern needs verification through other multi-
environment trials for this target region. Regarding this pattern,
genotypes G1, G6, G13 and G16 were as the most favorable
genotypes, had specific adaptability for these mega-
environments. As discussed by Sabaghnia et al. (2010), the
above inferences about polygon view patterns are mostly, but
not totally, validated from the original data. However, the
model outcome is worthwhile for recommendation purposes
since, as first demonstrated by Gauch (1988), and later applied
to GE modeling by Sabaghnia et al. (2012c).
Successful genotypes of barley need to be adapted to a broad
range of environmental conditions in order to ensure their yield
stability. It is clear that the AMMI biplots are excellent tools for
visual multi-environment trials analysis. Compared with
conventional methods, the AMMI model approach has some
advantages (Gauch, 2006; Gauch et al., 2008; Sabaghnia, 2012).
The first gain of the AMMI biplot is its graphical presentation,
which greatly enhances our ability to understand the data
pattern. The second gain is its interpretative option (Gauch et
al., 2008). Selection of genotypes for stability is needed in most
dry-land environments, where the environment is variable and
unpredictable. Therefore, simultaneous selection for yield and
stability is the most valuable selection index that can be used in
any breeding program. Such a similar outcome could be
employed in the future to delineate predictive, more rigorous
recommendation strategies as well as to help define stability
concepts for recommendations for barley and other crops in
other areas of the world.

Conclusions

Despite the fact that the various stability methods are indicative,
the AMMI method provides more useful information for
achieving definitive results and the identification of mega-
environments and wining genotypes are indispensable. The best
recommended genotypes according to the this investigation
were G6 (3591 kg ha-1) for location Khoramabad, G16 (3192
kg ha-1) for location Gonbad, and G13 (3119 kg ha-1) for
location Moghan which had high mean yield and was the most
stable for related mega- environments.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Iranian Dry Agricultural Research
Institute for making available the plant materials, experimental
locations and financial supports.

References

Annicchiarico P, 2002. Genotype environment interactions: challenges
and opportunities for plant breeding and cultivar recommendations.
FAO, Rome.
Baker RJ, 1988. Tests for crossover genotype-environmental interactions.
Canadian Journal of Plant Science 68, 405410.
Becker HC, 1981. Correlations among some statistical measures of
phenotypic stability. Euphytica 30, 835840.
Becker HC, Leon J , 1988. Stability analysis in plant breeding. Plant
Breeding 101, 123.
Ceccarelli S, Grando. S 2000. Barley landraces fromthe fertile crescent: a
lesson for plant breeders. In: Brush SB, (eds) Genes in the field. On
farm conservation of crop diversity. IPGRI Rome, IDRC Ottawa,
Lewis Boca Raton
Cornelius PL, Seyedsadr MS, Crossa J , 1992. Using the shifted
multiplicative model to search for "separability" in crop cultivar trials.
Theoretical and Applied Genetic 84, 161172
De Lacy, IH, Basford KE, Cooper M, Bull J K, Mclaren CG, 1996.
Analysis of multi-environment trail an historical perspective. In: Plant
adaptation and crop improvement (Cooper M, Hammer GL, eds).
CAB International: Wallingford, UK. pp. 39124.
Dehghani H, Sabaghpour SH, Sabaghnia N, 2008. Genotype environment
interaction for grain yield of some lentil genotypes and relationship
among univariate stability statistics. Spanish J ournal of Agricultural
Research 6, 385394.
Eberhart SA, Russell WA, 1966. Stability parameters for comparing
varieties. Crop Science 6, 3640.
Finlay KW, Wilkinson GN, 1963. The analysis of adaptation in a plant
breeding programme. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 14,
742754.
Flores F, Moreno MT, Cubero J I, 1998. A comparison of univariate and
multivariate methods to analyze environments. Field Crops Research
56, 271286.
Gauch HG, 1988. Model selection and validation for yield trials with
interaction. Biometrics 44, 705715.
Gauch HG, 2006. Statistical analysis of yield trials by AMMI and GGE.
Crop Science 46, 14881500.
Gauch HG, Piepho HP, Annicchiarico P, 2008. Statistical analysis of yield
trials by AMMI and GGE. Further considerations. Crop Science 48,
866889.
Mohammadi et al.


24
Huehn M, 1990. Nonparametric measures of phenotypic stability. Part 1:
Theory. Euphytica 47, 189194.
Karimizadeh R, Mohammadi M, Sabaghnia N, Shefazadeh MK,
Pouralhossini J, 2012. Univariate stability analysis methods for
determining genotype environment interaction of durumwheat grain
yield. African Journal of Biotechnology 11, 25632573
Raymond CA, 2011. Genotype by environment interactions for Pinus
radiate in New South Wales, Australia. Tree Genetics and Genomes
7, 819833.
Sabaghnia N, Dehghani H, Alizadeh B, MohghaddamM 2010. Genetic
analysis of oil yield, seed yield, and yield components in rapeseed
using additive main effects and multiplicative interaction biplots.
Agronomy J ournal 102, 13611368.
Sabaghnia N, Mohammadi M, Karimizadeh R, 2012a. The evaluation of
genotype environment interactions of durumwheats yield using of
the AMMI model. Agriculture and Forestry 55, 5-21.
Sabaghnia N, Karimizadeh R, Mohammadi M, 2012b. Grain yield stability
analysis of lentil genotypes by additive main effects and multiplicative
interactions model. Yuzuncu Yil Universitesi J ournal of Agricultural
Sciences 22, 155-164.
Sabaghnia N, Karimizadeh R, Mohammadi M, 2012c. Model selection in
additive main effect and multiplicative interaction model in durum
wheat. Genetika 44, 325 339.
Sabaghnia N, 2012 Multivariate statistical analysis of genotype
environment interaction in multi-environment trials of breeding
programs. Agriculture and Forestry 56, 19-38.
Sabaghnia N, Dehghani H, Sabaghpour SH, 2008. Graphic analysis of
genotype by environment interaction for lentil yield in Iran.
Agronomy Journal 100, 760764.
Sabaghnia N, Dehghani H, Sabaghpour SH, 2006. Nonparametric methods
for interpreting genotype environment interaction of lentil
genotypes. Crop Science 46,11001106.
Truberg B, Huehn M, 2000. Contribution to the analysis of genotype by
environment interactions: Comparison of different parametric and
non-parametric tests for interactions with emphasis on crossover
interactions. J ournal of Agronomy and Crop Science 185, 267274.
Voltas J, Van Eeuwijk FA, Araus J L, Romagosa I, 1999. Integrating
statistical and ecophysiological analysis of genotype by environment
interaction for grain filling of barley II. Grain growth. Field Crops
Research 62, 7584
Wricke G, 1962. ber eine Methode zur Erfassung derkologischen
Streubreite in Feldversuchen. Zeitschrift Pflanzenzchtung 47, 9296.
Wu, HX, Matheson AC 2005. Genotype by environment interactions in an
Australia-wide radiata pine diallel mating experiment: implications for
regionalized breeding. Forest Science 51, 2940.
Zobel RW, Wright MJ, Gauch HG, 1988. Statistical analysis of a yield trial.
Agronomy Journal 80, 388393.