Cereal Research Communications

, Volume 46, Issue 2, pp 365–375 | Cite as

Additive Main Effects and Multiplicative Interaction and Yield Stability Index for Genotype by Environment Analysis and Wider Adaptability in Barley

  • V. KumarEmail author
  • A. S. Kharub
  • G. P. Singh


Genotype by environment interaction distorts genetic analysis, changes relative ranking of genotypes and a major obstruction for varietal release. AMMI model is a quick and relevant tool to judge environmental behaviour and genotypic stability in comparison to ANOVA, multiplicative model and linear regressions. We evaluated 19 barley genotypes grown at 08 diverse locations to identify discriminating environments and ideal genotypes with dynamic stability. In AMMI ANOVA, the locations and genotype by environment interaction exhibited 66% and 14.7% of the total variation. The initial first two principal components showed significant interaction with 36.0 and 28.4% variation, respectively. AMMI1 biplot showed that the environments Bawal, Ludhiana and Durgapura were high yielding with high IPCA1 scores and located far away from the biplot origin. However, in AMMI1and AMMI2 biplots the locations Hisar, Ludhiana, Karnal, Bathinda and Modipuram were found suitable with low IPCA2 scores. Yield stability index (YSI) was highly useful with ASV ranks and the genotypes DWRB150 and BH1013 and checks BH902, DWRUB52 and DWRB101 were selected for high grain yield and wider adaptability across the locations.


AMMI ASV YSI G×E barley 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alwala, S., Kwolek, T., McPherson, M., Pellow, J., Meyer, D. 2010. A comprehensive comparison between Eberhart and Russell joint regression and GGE biplot analyses to identify stable and high yielding maize hybrids. Field Crop Res. 119:225–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asfaw, A., Alemayehu, F., Gurum, F., Atnaf, M. 2009. AMMI and SREG GGE biplot analysis for matching varieties onto soybean production environments in Ethiopia. Scientific Res. and Essay 4:1322–1330.Google Scholar
  3. Baik, B.K., Ullrich, S.E. 2008. Barley for food: characteristics, improvement, and renewed interest. J. of Cereal Sci. 48:233–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker, H.C., Leon J. 1988. Stability analysis in plant breeding. Plant Breeding 101:1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crossa, J. 2012. From genotype x environment interaction to gene x environment interaction. Current Genomics 13:225–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eberhart, S.A., Russell, W.A. 1966. Stability parameters for comparing varieties. Crop Sci. 6:36–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. FAOSTAT. 2017: FAOSTAT. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. Available at (accessed April, 2017).
  8. Finlay, K.W., Wilkinson, G.N. 1963. The analysis of adaptation in a plant breeding programme. Crop and Pasture Sci. 14:742–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Flores, F., Moreno, M.T., Cubero, J.I. 1998. A comparison of univariate and multivariate methods to analyze G×E interaction. Field Crops Research 56:271–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gabriel, K.R. 1971. The biplot graphic display of matrices with application to principal component analysis. Biometrika 58:453–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gauch, H.G. 1988. Model selection and validation for yield trials with interaction. Biometrics 88:705–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gauch, H.G. 2006. Statistical analysis of yield trials by AMMI and GGE. Crop Sci. 46:1488–1500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gauch, H.G., Piepho, H.P., Annicchiarico, P. 2008. Statistical analysis of yield trials by AMMI and GGE: Further considerations. Crop Sci. 48:866–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kuchanur, P. H., Salimath, P.M., Wali, M.C., Hiremath, C. 2015. GGE biplot analysis for grain yield of single cross maize hybrids under stress and non-stress conditions. Indian J. Genet. 75:514–517.Google Scholar
  15. Kumar V., Kharub, A.S., Verma, R.P.S., Verma, A. 2016a. Applicability of joint regression and biplot models for stability analysis in multi-environment barley (Hordeum vulgare) trials. Indian Journal of Agril. Sci. 86:1443–1448.Google Scholar
  16. Kumar, V., Khippal, A., Singh, J., Selvakumar, R., Malik, R., Kumar, D., Kharub, A.S., Verma, R.P.S., Sharma, I. 2014. Barley research in India: retrospect and prospects. Journal of Wheat Res. 6:1–20.Google Scholar
  17. Kumar, V., A. S. Kharub, R. P. S. Verma, A. Verma, 2016b: AMMI, GGE biplots and regression analysis to comprehend the G × E interaction in multi-environment barley trials. Indian Journal of Genet. 76:202–204.Google Scholar
  18. Kumar, V., Kumar, R., Verma., R.P.S., Verma, A., Sharma, I. 2013. Recent trends in breeder seed production of barley (H. vulgare L.) in India. Indian Journal of Agril. Sci. 83:576–578.Google Scholar
  19. Mohammadi, R., Amri, A. 2013. Genotype x environment interaction and genetic improvement for yield and yield stability of rainfed durum wheat in Iran. Euphytica 192:227–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mortazavian, S.M., Nikkhah, H.R., Hassani, F.A., Sharif-al-Hosseini, M., Taheri, M., Mahlooji, M. 2014. GGE biplot and AMMI analysis of yield performance of barley genotypes across different environments in Iran. J. of Agril. Sci. and Tech. 16:609–622.Google Scholar
  21. Nurminiemi, M., Madsen, S., Rognli, O.A., Bjornstad, A., Ortiz, R. 2002. Analysis of the genotype-by-environment interaction of spring barley tested in the Nordic Region of Europe: Relationships among stability statistics for grain yield. Euphytica 127:123–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Oliveira, E.J., Freitas, J.P., Jesus, O.N. 2014. AMMI analysis of the adaptability and yield stability of yellow passion fruit varieties. Scientia Agricola. 71:139–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Purchase, J.L., Hatting, H., Vandeventer, C.S. 2000. Genotype × environment interaction of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in South Africa. II. Stability analysis of yield performance. South African J. of Plant and Soil 17:101–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rad, M.R.N., Kadir, M.A., Rafi, M.Y., Jaafar, H.Z., Naghavi, M.R., Ahmadi, F. 2013. Genotype× environment interaction by AMMI and GGE biplot analysis in three consecutive generations of wheat (Triticum aestivum) under normal and drought stress conditions. Aus. J. of Crop Sci. 7:956–961.Google Scholar
  25. Raggi, L., Ciancaleoni, S., Torricelli, R., Terzi, V., Ceccarelli, S., Negri, V. 2017. Evolutionary breeding for sustainable agriculture: Selection and multi-environmental evaluation of barley populations and lines. Field Crops Res. 204:76–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rakshit, S., Ganapathy, K., Gomashe, S., Dhandapani, A., Swapna, M., Mehtre, S., Gadakh, S., Ghorade, R., Kamatar, M., Jadhav, B., Das, I. 2017. Analysis of Indian post-rainy sorghum multi-location trial data reveals complexity of genotype× environment interaction. The J. of Agril. Sci. 155:44–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rakshit, S., Ganapathy, K.N., Gomashe, S.S., Rathore, A., Ghorade, R.B., Kumar, M.V.N., Ganesmurthy, K., Jain, S.K., Kamtar, M.Y., Sachan, J.S., Ambekar, S.S., Ranwa, B.R., Kanawade, D.G., Balusamy, M., Kadam, D., Sarkar, A., Tonapi, V.A., Patil, J. V. 2012. GGE biplot analysis to evaluate genotype, environment and their interactions in sorghum multi-location data. Euphytica 185:465–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sousa, L.B., Hamawaki, O.T., Nogueira, A.P., Batista, R.O., Oliveira, V.M., Hamawaki, R.L. 2015. Evaluation of soybean lines and environmental stratification using the AMMI, GGE biplot, and factor analysis methods. Genetics and Mol. Res. 14:12660–12674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Yan, W., Kang, M.S., Ma, B., Woods, S., Cornelius, P.L. 2007. GGE biplot vs. AMMI analysis of genotype-by-environment data. Crop Sci. 47:643–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ICAR-Indian Institute of Wheat & Barley ResearchKarnal, (HR)India

Personalised recommendations