PHENOTYPIC STABILITY FOR GRAIN YIELD AND ITS CONTRIBUTING CHARACTERS USING DIFFERENT STABILITY MODELS IN BREAD WHEAT (Triticum aestivum L. em. Thell.) 1979
Abstract
The genotype x environment interaction is of major concern in plant breeding programmes. Number of statistical methods have been developed to analyse G x E interaction and thereby to evaluate pbenotypic stability of genotypes. However, the literature on comparison of stability analysis model is very scanty. The present study was undertaken to compare some stability analysis models. For this purpose eighty genotype of bread wheat were evaluated at two different locations viz., Wheat Research Station and Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Khapat (Porbandar), Junagadh Agricultural University, Junagadh during the Rabi 2009-10 in a randomized complete block design with three replication. Four environments were created by sowing crop in two different dates of sowing at two locations i.e. Ei (normal sowing at Khapat), E2 (late sowing at Khapat), E3 (normal sowing at Junagadh), E4 (late sowing at Junagadh). The data on days to 50% flowering, days to maturity, plant height (cm), number of effective tillers per plant, peduncle length (cm), flag leaf area (cm^), length of main spike (cm), number of spikelets per spike, number of grains per spike, 1000-grain weight (g)» biological yield per plant (g), harvest index (%) and grain yield per plant (g) were recorded and analysed. Three stability analysis models proposed by Eberhart and Russell (1966), Perkins and Jinks (1968) and Freeman and Perkins (1971) were compared empirically for their efficiency. Additive main effects and multiplicative interaction (AMMI) analysis was also attempted in this study to evaluate 80 bread wheat genotypes established in four environments using grain yield data in order to determine the magnitude of G x E interaction and to identify stable and adaptable genotypes. Differential relative response to different genotypes to different enviromnents were observed for grain yield and other characters under study. The ranking of genotypes for grain yield per plant showed that none of the genotype had same rank in all the environments. The genotype MACS 2496, GW 322,
PEN 4456 and J 24 ranked first in E,, Hi, Ej and E, environments respectively Analysis "eSr^*' ~ ---t at f.rs?position i^aiUh: sitnilarSL'e~o?s3^^ Mfat™gltt"l:r"-™'^'^ performance and prediction of stability in all the three models Piediction of coirelation between mean and deviatL from r^^re'sTon tf S''' prediction of stability perfonnance was easy This on the bf. T mean regression values (b"^', Bi and b''') and deviation f coii-elation among (F)), it could be concluded that the prelcttT wT. (E) and S^d^ models. moieover similar in all the three The stability analysis by using Eberhart and Russell ^ , r- .. characters under study revealed that none tlie ry« (1966) model for all the characters. However genotypes J 91-10 and P 11616 high ^ain yield per piani^under four ^vL^entlreol^^^^^^ genotypes can be designated for timely and late sowine cond".' Khapat locations. But still there is a need to evaluate them for Im yL" As per Perkins and Jinks (1968) model 14 ^ giving stable performance for grain yield ner nl'am promising in genotypes were found common in both models Twemrfl Most of the gram yield as per the model of Freeman and Perkins fl 97l7^ produced stable The AMMI analysis for arain vJpIH ^ ^ u multiplicative hence the environments had the 7 ^^^^el was found not component were non-significant genotype or envirn principal line reactive to the ordinate has same vidd can. t 7? Parallel of the midpoint of the axis has slighSy hile ' the right sid those ot. the left side. Therefore, hipt lwt „^^^^^^ in few genotypes otHy th oiitaiy group of genotypes.
Description
Keywords
GENETICS AND PLANT BREEDING