, Volume 162, Issue 2, pp 221–229 | Cite as

Non-parametric measures of phenotypic stability in chickpea genotypes (Cicer arietinum L.)

  • Asghar Ebadi Segherloo
  • Sayyed Hossain Sabaghpour
  • Hamid Dehghani
  • Morteza Kamrani


Multi-environment trials (MET) play an important role in selecting the best cultivars and/or agronomic practices to be used in future years at different locations by assessing a cultivar's stability across environments before its commercial release. Objective of this study is to identify chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes that have high yield and stable performance across different locations. The genotypes were developed by various breeders at different research institutes/stations of Iran and the International Center for Agricultural Research in Dray Areas (ICARDA), Syria. Several statistical methods were used to evaluate phenotypic stability of these test chickpea genotypes. The 17 genotypes were tested at six different research stations for two years in Iran. Three non-parametric statistical test of significance for genotype × environment (GE) interaction and ten nonparametric measures of stability analyses were used to identify stable genotypes across the 16 environments. The non-parametric measures (Kubinger, Hildebrand and Kroon/Van der) for G × E interaction were highly significant (P < 0.01), suggesting differential responses of the genotypes to the test environments. Based on high values of nonparametric superiority measure (Fox et al. 1990) and low values of Kang's (1988) rank-sum stability parameters, Flip 94-123C was identified as the most stable genotype. These non parametric parameters were observed to be associated with high mean yield. However, the other nonparametric methods were not positively correlated with mean yield and were therefore not used in classifying the genotypes. Simple correlation coefficients using Spearman’s rank correlation, calculated using ranks was used to measure the relationship between the stability parameters. To understand the nature of relationships among the nonparametric methods, a hierarchical cluster analysis based on non weighted values of genotypes, was performed. The 10 stability parameters fell into three groups.


Cicer arietinum L. Genotype × environment interaction Nonparametric stability measure 



Thanks to Profs. M. S. Kang and H. Y. Lu for their helpful comments and Prof. Leon for SAS programs. Our sincere gratitude also goes to the Iranian Agricultural Research Organization and its Agricultural Research Stations for providing plant materials, experimental sites and technical assistance.


  1. Arshad M, Bakhsh A, Haqqani AM, Bashir M (2003). Genotype-environment interaction for grain yield in chickpea (Cicer Arietinum L.). Pak. J Bot 35(2):181–186Google Scholar
  2. Comstock RE, Moll PH (1963) Genotype-environment interaction. In: Symposium on statistical genetics and plant breeding, NAS-NRC Publication, pp 164–196Google Scholar
  3. De Kroon J, van der Laan P (1981) Distribution-free test procedures in two-way layouts: a concept of rank-interaction. Stat Neerl 35:189–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. FAO (2001) UN Food and Agriculture Organization. Rome. ItalyGoogle Scholar
  5. FAO (2004). Production year book, 2003. Food and Agricultural OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  6. Finlay KW, Wilkinson GN (1963) The analysis of adaptation in a plant breeding program. Aust J Agric Res 14:742–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fox PN, Skovmand B, Thompson BK, Braun HJ, Cormier R (1990) Yield and adaptation of hexaploid spring triticale. Euphytica 47:57–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hildebrand H (1980) Asymptotosch Verteilungsfreie Rangtests in linearen Modellen. Med Inform Stak 17:344–349Google Scholar
  9. Huehn VM (1979) Beitrage zur erfassung der phanotypischen stabilitat. EDV Med Biol 10:112–117Google Scholar
  10. Huehn M (1990) Nonparametric measures of phenotypic stability: Part 1. Theory. Euphytica 47:189–194Google Scholar
  11. Huehn M, Leon J (1995) Nonparametric analysis of cultivar performance trials: experimental results and comparison of different procedures based on ranks. Agron J 87:627–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jauregui B, Flores F, Gil J (1996) Use of AMMI analysis to elucidate genotype–environment interaction in chickpea (Cicer Arietinum L.). Legume Research 19(2):117–123Google Scholar
  13. Kang MS (1988) A rank–sum method for selecting high-yielding, stable corn genotypes. Cereal Res Commun 16:113–115Google Scholar
  14. Kang MS (1990) Genotype-by-environment interaction and plant breeding. Louisana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA, USA, pp 392Google Scholar
  15. Kang MS, Pham HN (1991) Simultaneous selection for high yielding and stable crop genotypes. Agron J 83:161–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ketata H, Yan SK, Nachit M (1989) Relative consistency performance across environments. International symposium on physiology and breeding of winter cereals for stressed mediterranean environments. Montpellier, July 3–6, 1989Google Scholar
  17. Kubinger KD (1986) A note on non-parametric tests for the interaction on two-way layouts. Biom J 28:67–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lin CS, Binns MR, Lefkovitch LP (1986) Stability analysis: Where do we stand? Crop Sci 26:894–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mekbib F (2003) Yield stability in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) genotypes. Euphytica 130:147–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mungomery VE, Shorter R, Byth DE (1974) Genotype × environment interactions and environmental adaptation. 1. Pattern analysis-application to soya bean populations. Aust J Agric Res 25:59–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nassar R, Huehn M (1987) Studies on estimation of phenotypic stability: tests of significance for nonparametric measures of phenotypic stability. Biometrics 43:45–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pritts M, Luby J (1990) Stability indices for horticultural crops. HortScience 25:740–745Google Scholar
  23. Roemer T (1917) Sin die ertragsreichen sorten ertragssicherer. Mitt DLG 32:87–89Google Scholar
  24. Sabaghnia N, Dehghani H, Sbaghpour H (2005) Nonparametric methods for interpreting genotype × environment interaction of lentil genotypes. Crop Sci 46:1100–1106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sabaghpour SH, Sadeghi E, Malhotra RS (2003) Present status and future prospects of chickpea cultivation in Iran. international chickpea conference, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India, pp 436–443Google Scholar
  26. SAS Institute (1996) SAS/STAT user’s guide. v. 6 4th ed. SAS Inst., Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  27. Scapim CA, Oliveira VR, Braccini1 AL, Cruz CD, Andrade CAB, Vidigal MCG (2000) Yield stability in maize (Zea mays L.) and correlations among the parameters of the Eberhart & Russell, Lin & Binns and Huehn models. Genet Mol Biol 23:387–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shukla GK (1972) Some aspects of partitioning genotype-environmental components of variability. Heredity 28:237–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Thennarasu K (1995) On certain non-parametric procedures for studying genotype-environment interactions and yield stability. Ph.D. Theses P J School IARI, New DehliGoogle Scholar
  30. Truberg B, Huehn M (2000) Contribution to the analysis of genotype by environment interactions: comparison of different parametric and nonparametric tests for interactions with emphasis on crossover interactions. Agron Crop Sci 185:267–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ward JH (1963) Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. J Am Stat Assoc 58:236–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Asghar Ebadi Segherloo
    • 1
  • Sayyed Hossain Sabaghpour
    • 2
  • Hamid Dehghani
    • 1
  • Morteza Kamrani
    • 3
  1. 1. Department of Plant Breeding, Faculty of AgricultureTarbiat Modares UniversityTehranIran
  2. 2.Dry land Agricultural Research InstituteKermanshahIran
  3. 3. Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Faculty of AgricultureUniversity of TabrizTabrizIran

Personalised recommendations