A comparison of univariate and multivariate methods to analyze G x E interaction

被引:179
|
作者
Flores, F [1 ]
Moreno, MT
Cubero, JI
机构
[1] Univ Huelva, EPS La Rabida, Dept Ciencias Agroforestales, Palos De La Frontera 21819, Huelva, Spain
[2] Ctr Invest & Formac Agrario, Dept Mejora & Agron, Cordoba 14080, Spain
[3] Univ Cordoba, Dept Genet, E-14080 Cordoba, Spain
关键词
genotype-environment interaction; principal components analysis; stability; yield;
D O I
10.1016/S0378-4290(97)00095-6
中图分类号
S3 [农学(农艺学)];
学科分类号
0901 ;
摘要
Twenty-two different methods (parametric, nonparametric and multivariate) used for analysing genotype X environment (G X E) interaction were compared by applying them to two sets of experimental data (15 faba bean cultivars X 12 environments and 11 pea cultivars X 16 environments). A principal components analysis was performed on the rank correlation matrix arising from the application of each method. The 22 methods can be categorized, in both sets of experimental data, in three groups: (1) those which are mostly associated with yield level and show little or no correlation with stability parameters; (2) those in which both yield level and stability of performance are considered simultaneously to reduce the effect of G x E interaction; and (3) those methods which only measure stability. This analysis also separated those methods based on an agronomic concept of stability from those which are based on a biological one, as well as distinguishing between 'dynamic' and 'static' stability-based methods. (C) 1998 Elsevier Science B.V.
引用
收藏
页码:271 / 286
页数:16
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] A COMPARISON OF METHODS FOR UNIVARIATE AND MULTIVARIATE ACCEPTANCE SAMPLING BY VARIABLES
    HAMILTON, DC
    LESPERANCE, ML
    TECHNOMETRICS, 1995, 37 (03) : 329 - 339
  • [2] Multivariate genetic analysis of sex limitation and G x E interaction
    Neale, Michael C.
    Roysamb, Espen
    Jacobson, Kristen
    TWIN RESEARCH AND HUMAN GENETICS, 2006, 9 (04) : 481 - 489
  • [3] Comparison of multivariate and univariate methods for the estimation of type B genetic correlations
    Lu, P
    Huber, DA
    White, TL
    SILVAE GENETICA, 2001, 50 (01) : 13 - 22
  • [4] A Comparison of Univariate and Multivariate GWAS Methods for Analysis of Multiple Dichotomous Phenotypes
    Salinas, Y.
    DeWan, A.
    Wang, Z.
    HUMAN HEREDITY, 2017, 83 (01) : 49 - 49
  • [5] A Comparison of Univariate and Multivariate GWAS Methods for Analysis of Multiple Dichotomous Phenotypes
    Salinas, Yasmmyn D.
    Dewan, Andrew T.
    Wang, Zuoheng
    GENETIC EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2017, 41 (07) : 689 - 689
  • [6] A comparison of univariate and multivariate methods for analyzing clinal variation in an invasive species
    Edwards, Keith R.
    Bastlova, Dasa
    Edwards-Jonasova, Magda
    Kvet, Jan
    HYDROBIOLOGIA, 2011, 674 (01) : 119 - 131
  • [7] A comparison of univariate and multivariate methods for analyzing clinal variation in an invasive species
    Keith R. Edwards
    Dáša Bastlová
    Magda Edwards-Jonášová
    Jan Květ
    Hydrobiologia, 2011, 674 : 119 - 131
  • [8] UNIVARIATE AND MULTIVARIATE METHODS FOR SEXING SACRUM
    FLANDER, LB
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY, 1978, 49 (01) : 103 - 110
  • [9] Genetic analyses of longitudinal phenotype data: a comparison of univariate methods and a multivariate approach
    Yang, Q
    Chazaro, I
    Cui, J
    Guo, CY
    Demissie, S
    Larson, M
    Atwood, LD
    Cupples, LA
    DeStefano, AL
    BMC GENETICS, 2003, 4 (Suppl 1)
  • [10] Genetic analyses of longitudinal phenotype data: a comparison of univariate methods and a multivariate approach
    Qiong Yang
    Irmarie Chazaro
    Jing Cui
    Chao-Yu Guo
    Serkalem Demissie
    Martin Larson
    Larry D Atwood
    L Adrienne Cupples
    Anita L DeStefano
    BMC Genetics, 4