Genotype by environment interaction components underlying variations in root, sugar and white sugar yield in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.)

被引:0
|
作者
Mahdi Hassani
Bahram Heidari
Ali Dadkhodaie
Piergiorgio Stevanato
机构
[1] Shiraz University,Department of Crop Production and Plant Breeding, School of Agriculture
[2] Sugar Beet Seed Institute (SBSI),Department of Agronomy, Animals, Natural Resources and Environment
[3] University of Padova,DAFNAE
来源
Euphytica | 2018年 / 214卷
关键词
AMMI; GGE biplot; Model diagnosis; Hybrid; Stability; Representativeness; Discriminating ability;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
The success of plant breeding programs depends on the ability to provide farmers with genotypes with guaranteed superior performance in terms of yield across a range of environmental conditions. We evaluated 49 sugar beet genotypes in four different geographical locations in 2 years aiming to identify stable genotypes with respect to root, sugar and white sugar yields, and to determine discriminating ability of environments for genotype selection and introduce representative environments for yield comparison trials. Combinations of year and location were considered as environment. Statistical analyses including additive main effects and multiplicative interactions (AMMI), genotype main effects and genotype × environment interaction effects (GGE) models and AMMI stability value (ASV) were used to dissect genotype by environment interactions (GEI). Based on raw data, root, sugar and white sugar yields varied from 0.95 to 104.86, 0.15 to 20.81, and 0.09 to 18.45 t/ha across environments, respectively. Based on F-Gollob validation test, three interaction principal components (IPC) were significant for each trait in the AMMI model whereas according to F ratio (FR) test two significant IPCs were identified for root yield and sugar yield and three for white sugar yield. For model diagnosis, the actual root mean square predictive differences (RMS PD) were estimated based upon 1000 validations and the AMMI-1 model with the smallest RMS PD was identified as the most accurate model with highest predictive accuracy for the three traits. In the GGE biplot model, the first two IPCs accounted for 60.52, 62.9 and 64.69% of the GEI variation for root yield, sugar yield and white sugar yield, respectively. According to the AMMI-1 model, two mega-environments were delineated for root yield and three for sugar yield and white sugar yield. The mega-environments identified had an evident ecological gradient from long growing season to intermediate or short growing season. Environment-focused scaling GGE biplots indicated that two locations (Ekbatan and Zarghan) were the most representative testing environments with discriminating ability for the three traits tested. Environmentally stable genotypes (i.e. G21, G28 and G29) shared common parental lines in their pedigree having resistance to some sugar beet diseases (i.e. rhizomania and cyst nematodes). The results of the AMMI model were partly in accord with the results of GGE biplot analysis with respect to mega-environment delineation and winner genotypes. The outcome of this study may assist breeders to save time and costs to identify representative and discriminating environments for root and sugar yield test trials and creates a corner stone for an accelerated genotype selection to be used in sweet-based programs.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Genotype by environment interaction components underlying variations in root, sugar and white sugar yield in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.)
    Hassani, Mahdi
    Heidari, Bahram
    Dadkhodaie, Ali
    Stevanato, Piergiorgio
    [J]. EUPHYTICA, 2018, 214 (04)
  • [2] AMMI Analysis of Genotype x Environment Interaction on Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Yield, Sugar Content and Production in Romania
    Oroian, Camelia
    Ugrutan, Florin
    Muresan, Iulia Cristina
    Oroian, Ioan
    Odagiu, Antonia
    Petrescu-Mag, Ioan Valentin
    Burduhos, Petru
    [J]. AGRONOMY-BASEL, 2023, 13 (10):
  • [3] HETEROTIC EFFECTS OF SUGAR BEET (BETA VULGARIS L.) HYBRIDS FOR ROOT YIELD AND SUGAR CONTENT
    Tabynbayeva, L. K.
    Bastaubayeva, Sh. O.
    Yerzhebayeva, R. S.
    Konusbekov, K.
    Roik, N. V.
    [J]. SABRAO JOURNAL OF BREEDING AND GENETICS, 2023, 55 (05): : 1476 - 1485
  • [4] Root yield and quality of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) in relation to plant population
    Cakmakci, R
    Oral, E
    Kantar, F
    [J]. JOURNAL OF AGRONOMY AND CROP SCIENCE-ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ACKER UND PFLANZENBAU, 1998, 180 (01): : 45 - 52
  • [5] Effects of limited irrigation on root yield and quality of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.)
    Mahmoodi, R.
    Maralian, H.
    Aghabarati, A.
    [J]. AFRICAN JOURNAL OF BIOTECHNOLOGY, 2008, 7 (24): : 4475 - 4478
  • [6] Investigation of Residual DNAs in Sugar from Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.)
    Oguchi, Taichi
    Onishi, Mari
    Chikagawa, Yukie
    Kodama, Takashi
    Suzuki, Emiri
    Kasahara, Masaki
    Akiyama, Hiroshi
    Teshima, Reiko
    Futo, Satoshi
    Hino, Akihiro
    Furui, Satoshi
    Kitta, Kazumi
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE FOOD HYGIENIC SOCIETY OF JAPAN, 2009, 50 (01): : 41 - 46
  • [7] ROOT YIELD, SUGAR CONTENT AND WHITE SUGAR YIELD IN DEPENDENCE ON YEAR AND SUGAR BEET VARIETY
    Cerny, Ivan
    Pacuta, Vladimir
    Ernst, David
    Zapletalova, Alexandra
    Rasovsky, Marek
    Sulik, Richard
    Buso, Rastislav
    Gazo, Jan
    Pincek, Ondrej
    [J]. LISTY CUKROVARNICKE A REPARSKE, 2021, 137 (5-6): : 204 - 208
  • [8] Crystals in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) leaves
    Semenova G.A.
    Romanova A.K.
    [J]. Cell and Tissue Biology, 2011, 5 (1) : 74 - 80
  • [9] The Effect of Foliar Fertilization on the Yield and Quality of Sugar Beet (Beta Vulgaris L.)
    Diána Ungai
    Zoltán Győri
    [J]. Cereal Research Communications, 2006, 34 : 697 - 700
  • [10] Effects of compaction during drilling on yield of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.)
    Arvidsson, Johan
    Bolenius, Elisabeth
    Vieira Cavalieri, Karina Maria
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF AGRONOMY, 2012, 39 : 44 - 51