AMMI BIPLOT ANALYSIS OF GRAIN YIELD PERFORMANCES OF TEF (ERAGROSTIS TEF [ZUCC.] TROTTER) VARIETIES ACROSS DIFFERENT LOCATIONS OF SOUTH AND SOUTHWESTERN ETHIOPIA
Objective: The objective of the study was to identify high yielding and stable tef varieties across different locations of South and Southwestern part of Ethiopia.
Methods: The experiment was conducted using 21 tef varieties obtained from a tef breeding program based at Debre Zeit Agricultural Research Center. The trial was laid out using a randomized complete block design with three replications at six locations during the 2018 cropping season. Data for all relevant agronomic traits were collected, but only plot yield data converted to kg/ha was subjected to statistical analysis.
Results: The results of combined analysis of variance for grain yield of 21 tef varieties across six locations revealed that there is a highly significant difference among the locations, genotypes, and interaction effects with the contributions of 67.4, 8.1, and 17.8% of sum of squares, respectively. Analysis of variance of AMMI model revealed the two interaction principal component analysis (IPCA1 and IPCA2) were highly significant according to Gollob’s test and accounted for 42.8 and 20.6% of variance, respectively.
Conclusion: Based on AMMI Biplot analysis, Ambo location could be the representative area among tested locations to determine the tef varieties and the variety Heber-1 (G11) and Dukem (G15) were recommendable for broad adaptation since they were stable and high yielding across locations.
2. Spaenij D, Liesbeth D, Kooy-Winkelaar Y, Frits K. The Ethiopian cereal tef in celiac disease. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1748-9.
3. CSA. Agricultural Sample Survey, Report on Area and Production of Crops (Private Peasant Holdings, Meher Season; 2015.
4. CSA. Agricultural Sample Survey: Report on Area and Production of Major Crops (Private Peasant Holdings ‘‘Meher’’season). Vol. I Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: CSA; 2012.
5. Seyfu K. Tef. (Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter Promoting the Conservation and Use of Underutilized and Neglected Crops. Rome, Italy: Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research, Gatersleben (International Plant Genetic Resources Institute); 1997.
6. Tegegn B. Tef (Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter) breeding, achievements, challenges and opportunities in Ethiopia; incase Southwestern Ethiopia: Review. J Genet Environ Resour Conserv 2020;8:18-31.
7. Afework L, Tegegn B. GGE biplot stability analysis of seed yield in Tef (Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) varieties in South West Ethiopia. Adv Biochem 2020;8:62-7.
8. Tegegn B, Kebebew A, Afework L. Univariate stability analysis for determining genotype by environment interaction in Tef [Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter] at South and Southwestern Ethiopia. Int J Curr Res Acad Rev 2020;8:37-45.
9. Crossa J, Fox PN, Pfeifer WH, Rajaram S, Gauch HG. AMMI adjustment for statistical analysis of international wheat yield trial. Theor Appl Genet 1990;81:27-37.
10. Zoble R, Wright M, Gauch H. Statistical analysis of a yield trial. Agron J 1988;80:388-93.
11. Sadeghi SM, Samizadeh H, Amiri E, Ashouri M. Additive main effects and multiplicative interactions (AMMI) analysis of dry leaf yield in tobacco hybrids across environments. Afr J Biotechnol 2011;10:4358-64.
12. SAS. Statistical Analysis System (Version 9.0). Cary, NC: SAS Institute; 2002.
13. Falconer DS, Mackay TF. Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. 4th ed. Harlow: Longman; 1996.
14. Mekonnen Z, Mohammed H. Study on genotype x environment interaction of oil content in sesame (Sesamum indicum L.). World J Fungal Plant Biol 2010;1:15-20.
15. Purchase JL. Parametric Analysis to Describe Genotype x Environment Interaction and Yield Stability in Winter Wheat (Doctoral Dissertation, University of the Free State); 1997.
16. Hanamaratti NG, Salimath PM, Vijayakumar CH, Ravikumar RL, Kajjidon? ST, Chetti MB Genotypic stability of superior near isogenic introgression lines for productivity in upland rice. Karnataka J Agric Sci 2009;22:736-40.
17. Gauch H, Zobel RW. Identifying mega-environments and targeting genotypes. Crop Sci 1997;37:311-26.
18. Roostaei M, Mohammadi R, Amri A. Rank correlation among different statistical models in ranking of winter wheat genotypes. Crop J 2014;2:154-63.
19. Ferney GB, Alexei M, Aigul A. Evaluation of grain yield stability, reliability and cultivar recommendations in spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) from Kazakhstan and Siberia. J Cent Eur Agric 2006;7:649-60.
20. Adugna W, Labuschagne MT. Genotype x environment interactions and phenotypic stability analyses of linseed in Ethiopia. Plant Breed 2002;121:66-71.
21. Anley W, Zeleke H, Dessalegn Y. Genotype x Environment Interaction of Maize (Zea mays L.) Across North Western Ethiopia; 2013.
22. Caldicott JJ, Nuttall AM. A method for the assessment of lodging in cereal crops. J Natl Inst Agric Bot 1979;15:88-91.
23. Pacheco Á, Vargas M, Alvarado G, Rodríguez F, Crossa J, Burgueño J. GEA-R (Genotype x Environment analysis with R for windows) Version 2.0, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center V13, CIMMYT; 2015.
24. VSN International. Genstat Software Reference Manual (Release 18), Part 1 Summary. VSN International, Hemel Hempstead, UK; 2015.
25. Yan W, Rajcan I. Biplot analysis of test sites and trait relations of soybean in Ontario. Crop Sci 2002;42:11-20.
26. Yan W, Hunt LA. Interpretation of genotype × environment interaction for winter wheat yield in Ontario. Crop Sci 2001;41:19-25.
27. Yan W. GGE biplot a windows application for graphical analysis of multi environment trial data and other types of two way data. Agron J 2001;93:1111-8.
28. Ghaderi A, Everson EH, Cress CE. Classification of environments and genotypes in wheat 1. Crop Sci 1980;20:707-10.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.