Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abate F, Mekbib F, Dessalegn Y (2015) GGE biplot analysis of multi-environment yield trials of durum wheat (Triticum turgidum Desf.) genotypes in north western Ethiopia. Am J Exp Agric 8:120–129. https://doi.org/10.9734/AJEA/2015/9994
Abdollahian-Noghabi M, Sheikholeslami R, Babaei B (2005) Technical terms of sugar beet quantity and quality. J Sugar Beet 21:101–104 in Persian, abstract in English
Acosta-Pech R, Crossa J, de Los Campos G, Teyssèdre S, Claustres B, Pérez-Elizalde S, Pérez-Rodríguez P (2017) Genomic models with genotype × environment interaction for predicting hybrid performance: an application in maize hybrids. Theor Appl Genet 130:1431–1440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-017-2898-0
Ahmad S, Zubair M, Iqbal N, Cheema NM, Mahmood K (2012) Evaluation of sugar beet hybrid varieties under Thal-Kumbisoil series of Pakistan. Int J Agric Biol 14:605–608
Akbarpour O, Dehghani H, Sorkhi B, Gauch HG (2014) Evaluation of genotype × environment interaction in barley (Hordeum Vulgare L.) based on AMMI model using developed SAS program. J Agric Sci Technol 16:909–920
Akinwale RO, Fakorede MAB, Badu-Apraku B, Oluwaranti A (2014) Assessing the usefulness of GGE biplot as a statistical tool for plant breeders and agronomists. Cereal Res Commun 42:534–546. https://doi.org/10.1556/CRC.42.2014.3.16
Akter A, Jamil Hassan M, UmmaKulsum M, Islam MR, Hossain K (2014) AMMI biplot analysis for stability of grain yield in hybrid rice (Oryza sativa). J Rice Res 2:126–129. https://doi.org/10.4172/jrr.1000126
Anderson TW, Darling DA (1954) A test of goodness of fit. Am Stat Assoc 49:765–769. https://doi.org/10.2307/2281537
Annicchiarico P (1997) Joint regression vs AMMI analysis of genotype-environment interactions for cereals in Italy. Euphytica 94:53–62. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:100295482
Barocka KH (1978) The characterization of performance of sugar beets by variety × environment interaction. Euphytica 27:689–700. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00023704
Bassi FM, Sanchez-Garcia M (2017) Adaptation and stability analysis of ICARDA durum wheat elite across 18 countries. Crop Sci 57:2419–2430. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2016.11.0916
Beckett JL (1982) Variety × environment interactions in sugar beet variety trials. J Agric Sci 98:425–435. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859600041976
Biancardi E (2005) History of sugar beet breeding. In: Biancardi E, Campbell LG, Skaracis GN, DeBiaggi M (eds) Genetics and breeding of sugar beet. Science Publishers, Enfield, pp 38–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470751114.ch4
Biancardi E, McGrath JM, Panella LW, Lewellen RT, Stevanato P (2010) Sugar beet. In: Bradshaw JE (ed) Root and tuber crops. Handbook of plant breeding. Springer Science + Business Media, LLC, New York, pp 173–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-92765-7_6
Bloch D, Hoffmann C (2005) Seasonal development of genotypic differences in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) and their interaction with water supply. J Agron Crop Sci 191:263–272. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-037X.2005.00150.x
BrewbakerH E (1944) Adaptation of the sugar beet to meet the need of the sugar industry in America. J Am Soc Agron. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1944.00021962003600070004x
Broccanello C, McGrath JM, Panella L, Richardson K, Funk A, Chiodi C, Biscarini F, Barone V, Baglieri A, Squartini A, Concheri G, Stevanato P (2018) A SNP mutation affects rhizomania-virus content of sugar. Euphytica (accepted paper)
Campbell LG, Kern JJ (1982) Cultivar × environment interactions in sugar beet yield trials. Crop Sci 22:932–935. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1982.0011183X002200050008x
Cooper M, Delacy IH (1994) Relationships among analytical methods used to study genotypic variation and genotype-by-environment interaction in plant breeding multi-environment experiment. Theor Appl Genet 88:561–572. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01240919
Cornelius PL (1993) PL. Statistical test and retention of terms in the ammi main effects and multiplicative interaction model for cultivar traits. Crop Sci 33:1186–1193
Crossa J (1990) Statistical analyses of multilocation trials. Adv Agron 44:55–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2113(08)60818-4
Dehghani H, Ebadi A, Yousefi A (2006) Biplot analysis of genotype environment interaction for barley yield in Iran. Agron J 98:388–393. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2004.0310
Delacy IH, Basford KE, Cooper M, Bull JK, McLaren CG (1996) Analysis of multi-environment trials—an historical perspective. In: Hammer G, Cooper M (eds) Plant adaptation and crop improvement. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 39–124
Dias CTD, Krzanowski W (2003) Model selection and cross validation in additive main effect and multiplicative interaction models. Crop Sci 43:865–873
Dryacott AP (2006) Sugar beet. Blackwell, London. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470751114.ch1
Ebdon JS, Gauch HG (2002a) Additive main effect and multiplicative interaction analysis of national turfgrass performance trials: I. Interpretation of genotype × environment interaction. Crop Sci 42:489–496. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2002.4890
Ebdon JS, Gauch HG (2002b) Additive main effect and multiplicative interaction analysis of national turfgrass performance trials. II: Cultivar recommendations. Crop Sci 42:497–506. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2002.4970
Eberhart SA, Russell WA (1966) Stability parameters for comparing varieties. Crop Sci 6:36–40. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1966.0011183X000600010011x
Falconer DS, Mackay TFC (1996) Introduction to quantitative genetics, 4th edn. Longmans Green, Harlow
FAO (2009) Agribusiness handbook: sugar beet white sugar. EastAgri, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (ed), Rome, Italy
Finaly KW, Wilkinson GN (1963) The analysis of adaptation in a plant-breeding programme. Aust J Agric Res 4:742–754. https://doi.org/10.1071/AR9630742
Gauch HG (1988) Model selection and validation for yield trials with interaction. Biometrics 44:705–715. https://doi.org/10.2307/2531585
Gauch HG (1992) Statistical analysis of regional yield trials: AMMI analysis of factorial designs. Elsevier, Amsterdam. https://doi.org/10.1016/0308-521x(96)86769-2
Gauch HG (2007) MATMODEL VERSION 3.0: Open source software for AMMI and related analysis (verfied 27 Feb. 2008). Crop and Soil Science, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY. http://www.css.cornell.edu/staff/gauch
Gauch HG (2013) A simple protocol for AMMI analysis of yield trials. Crop Sci 53:1860–1869
Gauch HG, Zobel RW (1988) Predictive and postdictive success of statistical analyses of yield trials. Theor Appl Genet 76(1):1–10
Gauch HG, Piepho HP, Annicchiarico P (2008) Statistical analysis of yield trials by AMMI and GGE: further consideration. Crop Sci 48:866–888
GENSTAT (2009). ENSTAT, 12th edn. VSN International Ltd. (VSNi), Hertfordshire. http://www.vsni.co.uk
Ggyllenspetz U (1998) Genotype × environment interaction and stability of diploid and triploid sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) varieties. Doctoral thesis Swedish University Sveriges Lantbruks, Uppsala
Gollob HF (1968) A statistical model which combines features of factor analytic and analysis of variance techniques. Psychometrika 33:73–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289676
Hoberg F, Ladewig E, Kenter C (2016) Genotype environment interactions in sugar beet in Germany.75.IIRB-Congress, Brussels, 16–17 Feb 2016
Hoffmann CM, Marlander B (2005) Composition of harmful nitrogen in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) amino acids, betaine nitrateas affected by genotype and environment. Eur J Agron 22:255–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2004.03.003
Jalata Z (2011) GGE-biplot analysis of multi-environment yield trials of barley (Hordeom vulgaris L) genotypes in southeastern Ethiopia highlands. Int J Plant Breed Genet 5:59–75. https://doi.org/10.3923/ijpbg.2011.59.75
Jamshidmoghaddam M, Pourdad SS (2013) Genotype × environment interactions for seed yield in rainfed winter safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) multi-environment trials in Iran. Euphytica 190:357–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-012-0776-z
Kiliç H (2014) Additive main effects and multiplicative interactions (AMMI) analysis of grain yield in barley genotypes across environments. J Agric Sci 20:337–344. https://doi.org/10.15832/tbd.44431
Kumar J, Bratap A, Kumar S (2015) Phenomics in crop plants: trends, options and limitations. Springer, New York
Liebe S, Varrelmann M (2016) Effect of environment and sugar beet genotype on root rot development and pathogen profile during storage. Phytopathology 106:65–75. https://doi.org/10.1094/phyto-07-15-0172-r
Lin CS, Binns MR (1988) A superiority measure of cultivar performance for cultivar × location data. Canad J Plant Sci 68:193–198. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjps88-018
Lin CS, Binns MR (1994) Concepts and methods for analyzing regional trial data for cultivar and location selection. Plant Breed Rev 12:271–297. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470650493.ch10
Miranda GV, Souza LV, Guimarães LJM, Namorato H, Oliveira LR, Soares MO (2009) Multivariate analyses of genotype × environment interaction of popcorn. Pesq Agropecu Bras 44:45–50. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-204X2009000100007
Naroui Rad MR, Abdul Kadir M, Rafii YM, Hawa ZEJ, Naghavi MR, Ahmadi A (2013) Genotype × environment interaction by AMMI and GGE biplot analysis in three consecutive generations of wheat (Triticum aestivum) under normal and drought stress conditions. Aust J Crop Sci 7:956–961
Oliviera EJ, Freitas JPX, Jesus ON (2014) AMMI analysis of the adaptability and yield stability of yellow passion fruit varieties. Sci Agric 71:139–145
Perkins JM, Jinks JL (1968) Environmental and genotype environmental components of variability. III. Multiple lines and crosses. Heredity 23:339–356. https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.1968.48
Phuke RM, Anuradha K, Radhika K, Jabeen F, Anuradha G, Ramesh T et al (2017) Genetic variability, genotype × environment interaction, correlation, and GGE biplot analysis for grain iron and zinc concentration and other agronomic traits in RIL population of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench). Front Plant Sci 8:712. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.00712
Purchase JL, Hatting H, Van Deventer CS (2000) Genotype × environment interaction of winter wheat (T. aestivum) in South Africa: stability analysis of yield performance. S Afr J Plant Soil 17:101–107
Roostaei M, Mohammadi R, Amri A (2014) Rank correlation among different statistical models in ranking of winter wheat genotypes. Crop J 2:154–163
Saeed M, Francis CA, Rajweski JF (1984) Maturity effects on genotype × environment interactions in grain sorghum. Agron J 76:55–58. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1984.00021962007600010015x
Safari H, Moradi F, Jalilian A (2012) Study of genotype × environment interaction for sugar beet monogerm cultivars using AMMI method. J Sugar Beet 28:29–35. https://doi.org/10.22092/JSB.2012.658
Shapiro SS, Wilk MB (1965) An analysis of variance for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 52:591–611. https://doi.org/10.2307/2333709
Sousa LB, Hamawaki OT, Nogueira APO, Batista RO, Oliveira VM, Hamawaki RL (2015) Evaluation of soybean lines and environmental stratification using the AMMI, GGE biplot, and factor analysis methods. Genet Mol Res 14:12660–12674. https://doi.org/10.4238/2015.October.19.10
Stevanato PG, Broccanello C, Pajola L, Biscarini F, Richards C, Panella L, Hassani M, Formentin E, Chiodi C, Concheri G, Heidari B (2017) Targeted next-generation sequencing identification of mutations in disease resistance gene analogs (RGAs) in wild and cultivated beets. J Genes 8:264–276
Xu Y (2016) Envirotyping for deciphering environmental impacts on crop plants. Theor Appl Genet 129:653–673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-016-2691-5
Vargas H, Crossa, J (2000) The AMMI analysis and graphing the biplot. CIMMYT, Mexico
Yan W (2002) Singular value partitioning for biplot analysis of multi-environment trial data. Agron J 94:990–996. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2002.9900
Yan W, Hunt LA (2001) Interpretation of genotype environment interaction for winter wheat yield in Ontario. Crop Sci 41:19–25. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2001.41119x
Yan W, Kang (2003) GGE biplot analysis: a graphical tool for breeders, geneticists, and agronomists. CRC Press, Boca Raton. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420040371
Yan W, Rajcan I (2002) Biplot analysis of test sites and trait relations of soybean in Ontario. Crop Sci 42:11–20. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2002.0011
Yan W, Tinker NA (2005) An integrated biplot analysis system for displaying, interpreting, and exploring genotype by environment interactions. Crop Sci 45:1004–1016. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2004.0076
Yan W, Tinker AN (2006) Biplot analysis of multi-environment trial data: Principles and applications. Canad J Plant Sci 86:623–664. https://doi.org/10.4141/P05-169
Yan W, Kang MS, Ma B, Wood S, Cornelius PL (2007) GGE biplot vs. AMMI analysis of genotype-by-environment data. Crop Sci 47:643–655. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2006.06.0374
Zimmermann B, Zeddies J (2002) Productivity progress in sugar beet production—with special emphasis on the contribution of breeding. In Paper presented at the 13th International Farm Management Congress, Wageningen, 7–12 July 2002
Zobel RW, Wright MJ, Gauch HG (1988) Statistical analysis of a yield trials. Agron J 80:388–393. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1988.00021962008000030002x
Zorić M, Gunjaća J, Šimić D (2017) Genotypic and environmental variability of yield from seven different crops in Croatian official variety trials and comparison with on-farm trends. J Agric Sci 155:804–811. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859616000903
Gauch HG (2007) MATMODEL VERSION 3.0: Open source software for AMMI and related analysis (verfied 27 Feb. 2008). Crop and Soil Science, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY. http://www.css.cornell.edu/staff/gauch
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the Sugar Beet Seed Institute (SBSI) for providing sugar beet germplasm. Authors also appreciate Dr. H. G. Gauch, Cornell University, USA for his help in working with the softwares AMMISOFT and MATMODEL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest associated with this publication.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hassani, M., Heidari, B., Dadkhodaie, A. et al. Genotype by environment interaction components underlying variations in root, sugar and white sugar yield in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Euphytica 214, 79 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-018-2160-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-018-2160-0