Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
9 Springer-Verlag 1988
Cultivar Mean (kg/ha) Type 4 analysis (22 x 7 x 3) Two-way analysis (22 x 21)
Rate 1 Rate 2 Rate 1 Rate 2 Rate 1 Rate 2 Rate 1 Rate 2 Rate 1 Rate 2
B-1 3,564 3,835 1.15 1.05 553 (11) b 561 (11) 1.17 1.09 113 (9) 88 (4)
B-2 3,408 3,604 0.99 0.98 551 (10) 407 (5) 1.04 1.01 80 (5) 41 (I)
B-3 3,673 3,840 0.81 0.84 314 (4) 230 (2) 0.83 0.83 81 (4) 67 (2)
B-4 3,662 3,718 0.82 0.74 453 (8) 453 (7) 0.86 0.81 113 (8) 99 (5)
B-5 3,982 4,121 1.09 1.18 186 (1) 221 (1) 0.99 1.09 179 (11) 148 (10)
B-6 3,452 3,604 1.05 1.03 416 (7) 497 (10) 1.05 1.05 82 (6) 116 (8)
B-7 3,522 3,657 0.91 0.99 378 (5) 449 (6) 0.93 1.01 61 (2) 84 (3)
B-8 3,527 3,675 1.08 1.11 297 (3) 379 (4) 1.05 1.08 63 (3) 100 (6)
B-9 3,321 3,462 1.00 1.03 240 (2) 305 (3) 0.93 0.98 161 (10) 164 (11)
B-10 3,683 3,801 1.06 1.03 398 (6) 491 (9) 1.06 1.05 51 (1) 101 (7)
B-11 3,714 3,822 1.01 1.05 479 (9) 461 (8) 1.04 1.06 106 (7) 118 (9)
Cultivar Mean (kg/ha) Type 4 analysis (22 • 7 x 3) Two-way analysis (22 • 21)
Rate 1 Rate 2 Rate 1 Rate 2 Rate 1 Rate 2 Rate 1 Rate 2 Rate 1 Rate 2
O-1 3,708 3,795 1.07 1.11 607 (2) b 473 (2) 1.04 1.05 175 (5) 218 (6)
0-2 3,831 3,931 0.92 0.92 819 (4) 955 (6) 0.97 0.98 98 (3) 160 (5)
0-3 3,500 3,625 1.02 1.04 669 (3) 592 (3) 1.02 1.01 58 (1) 102 (2)
O-4 3,882 4,031 0.96 0.97 382 (1) 262 (1) 0.91 0.88 147 (4) 114 (4)
0-5 3,673 3,904 0.96 1.02 822 (5) 760 (4) 1.00 1.04 75 (2) 64 (1)
0-6 3,779 3,926 0.98 1.04 973 (6) 915 (5) 1.03 1.08 209 (6) 109 (3)
DF MS a DF MS a DF MS a
Genotype (G) 6 2,709 21 745 11 479
Environment (E) 44 (10,183) 20 (24,816) 20 (21,288)
Location (L) 14 18,997 6 66,262 6 53,925
Year (Y)/L b 30 6,070 14 7,053 14 7,301
GE 264 (145) 420 (111) 220 (138)
G• 84 (206) 126 (184) 66 (263)
heter, of b 6 361"* 21 228** ll 91
residuals 78 194"* t05 175'* 55 297**
G x Y/L a (Error) 180 116 294 79 154 84
Total 314 461 251
(i.e. large b) and with high stability (i.e. small years with- eter is defined from part of the data structurally indepen-
in location MS), then T-3 of set 1 (if only test cultivars are dent of the regression analysis.
compared), B-5 of set 2, and 0 - 4 of set 3 are the most
promising candidates. Comparison of type 4 with other measures of stability
In a critical literature review of stability, Lin et al. (1986)
classified the conventional stability concept into three
Discussion types. A genotype is considered to be stable: (1) if its
among-environment variance is small (type 1); (2) if its
The conceptual difference between type 4 analysis and response to environment is parallel to the mean response
the two-way analysis is that the former separates the of all genotypes in the trial (type 2); and (3) if the residual
environmental variation into predictable and unpre- MS from a regression model on the environmental index
dictable, while the latter does not. Separation of these is small (type 3). Type 3 stability, to which the two-way
two types of variation is important because predictable analysis belongs, was criticised because the regression
variation can be controlled to some extent by selecting model in the context of GE interaction is a data-based
cultivars with specific adaptability to regions, while un- descriptive model and not a prediction model as the argu-
predictable variation cannot be controlled: one must rely ment for this stability assumes (note that the primary
on the homeostatic property o f the cultivar itself. For the distinction between these two models made by the au-
type 4 analysis, two selection criteria are used: one from thors is that if the independent variable can be measured
the regression analysis based on cultivar x location yields prior to the test, it is a prediction model; otherwise, it is
averaged over years, and the other from the stability descriptive). They also suggested that type 2 stability
analysis based on individual year yield within each loca- suffers from inferential limitations because this stability
tion. The results o f the regression analysis are similar to depends on the other cultivars in the test, and that type
those o f the two-way analysis: the simple correlations 1 stability lacks general practical value because a cultivar
between the regression slopes obtained from the type 4 that yields evenly in all locations is usually poor. In con-
analysis (b) and those obtained from the two-way analy- trast to these three types of stability, type 4 stability is a
sis (b') are 0.95, 0.92 and 0.62 for sets 1, 2, and 3, respec- measure of unpredictable variation only, while the pre-
tively (Tables 1, 2 and 3). The key difference between the dictable or persistent part of the location effect is exclud-
two methods is the measure o f stability. In the two-way ed. Furthermore, type 4 stability is statistically indepen-
analysis, stability is defined either by slope (Finlay and dent of the regression analysis and of the other genotypes
Wilkinson 1963) or by both slope and residual MS from in the test.
regression (Eberhart and Russell 1966). In the type 4
analysis, the regression slope is not used as a stability
parameter but as a means to identify the optimum range Genetic property of type 4 stability
of locations, and the residuals from the regression are not An important question from the practical point o f view
used in measuring stability. Rather, the stability param- is whether type 4 stability (or any other) is truly represen-
429
Source DF MS"