Genotype x environment interaction and stability in promising elite clones of yield potentiality in respect to cane and sugar yield

The present investigation was carried out to determine the relative performance of yield potential, stability and adaptability of promising sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) varieties and identify promising once. Seven varieties were evaluated in randomized complete block design with three replications during spring season of 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 at Agricultural Research station, Ummedganj, Kota. The pooled analysis of variance showed highly significant (p < 0.01) differences for genotypes (G), environments (E) and G x E interaction. The mean cane & sugar yield (t/ha.), regression coefficient (bi) and deviation from regression (S2d) used to identify the stability and adaptability of popular varieties. Based on stability parameters and over all mean performance of cane & sugar yield, variety Co 0238 has high mean for both cane yield and sugar yield (83.05, 10.17) with bi =1.0 and non-significant s2d = 0, indicated that this varieties found better responsive to all the environments and were considered as stable varieties. Whereas the genotype Co 05009 produced high mean yield (79.64, 9.72), bi >1 with non significant s2d, indicated below average stability, such genotypes tend to respond favorably to better environments but give poor yield in unfavourable environments. Hence, these genotypes were suitable for favorable environments. Variety CoS 8436 having low mean ((73.83, 8.70) for cane & sugar yield, bi < 1 with non significant s2d value, indicated that genotype suitable for poor environment.

Illustrations explain the paper; charts are replotted from the paper's own table values.

AI-generated illustration

↗ Enlarge

Stability ClassificationClose ×

AI-generated conceptual illustration (sugarcane plants). It explains the idea and does not show study data.

Open full-size image ↗

Replotted from source data

↗ Enlarge

Cane yield (t/ha) / Mean and Sugar yield (t/ha) / Mean: CoJ 64 vs Co 0238 vs Co 05009 vs CoS 767 vs CoS 8436Close ×

Replotted from Table 3 (page 3) of the original paper. Every bar is the paper's own table value.

Open full-size image ↗

Replotted from source data

↗ Enlarge

CoJ 64: bi vs Sugar Yield (t/ha.) /...Close ×

Replotted from Table 4 (page 3) of the original paper. Every bar is the paper's own table value.

Open full-size image ↗

Introduction

Sugarcane is one of the major cash crops grown extensively in all over the world from tropical to subtropical region. India is the second largest producer in the sugarcane next to Brazil (FAO Data base 2004). In subtropical India variation in climatic conditions are wide in the period of its growth and maturity, here temperature ranges from 0 to 48 o C, photoperiod ranges from 4 -8 hr and humidity 8 -100%. Climatic coefficient shifts a are variable factors during the crop growth period which affect the yield and other characters. Hence, the yield of sugarcane is generally low in the part of India. Sugarcane breeding is highly complex because of its highly heterozygous nature, combined with higher polyploidy (2n= 80 to 120) level. A commercial cane variety is selected on its stability to produce sucrose, its resistance to pest and diseases and its rationing ability. While other characteristics may not influence the selection procedure to any great extent, they may influence a grower's choice of variety. It is desirable to grow better varieties that produce more cane and higher sugar yield so that proper and effective varietal scheduling can be practiced to provide quality cane to factories during the crushing period. In any plant breeding programme, the genotypes x environment interactions are of major importance when testing of newly developed varieties. The relative performance of a variety differs due to the differences in genotype x environment interaction in different environments. Genotype by environment interactions is important source of variation in any crop and the term stability can be used to characterize a genotype, which show a relatively constant yield, independent of changing environmental conditions. On the basis of this idea, genotype with a minimal variance for yield across different environments is considered stable (Sabaghnia et al. 2006) [8] . The analysis of adaptability and stability are therefore extremely important and necessary for the identification and recommendation of superior genotypes in different environments. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate any genotype for G x E interaction for yield & its attributes and identify stability for these traits in sugarcane. Cane yield and its component traits are highly affected by the environments. Techniques for G x E analysis based on linear regression can be informative when G x E interaction has high linear association with the environmental index but when the non linear component is also significant. (Finley and Wilkinson 1963 [2] , Eberhart and Russell (1966) [1] . The analysis based on Eberhart and Russell model being relatively simple and has been widely used for stability analysis. Regarding in stability parameters, sufficient information is not available in sugarcane which could be used in further breeding programme. Keeping above facts in view, the present investigation was under taken to focused on selection of high yielding varieties which are stable for cane and sugar yield.

Material and Methods

The present investigation was carried out with seven release varieties of sugarcane ( Rajasthan and recommended agronomic practices were followed during the entire cropping season to raise good crop. The stability of genotypes was estimated by using the method of Eberhart & Russell (1966) [1] . In this analysis sum of square due to G x E were portioned into individual genotype mean, regression of environmental mean (bi) and deviation from regression (S 2 d). The regression coefficient (bi) and mean square deviation from regression (S 2 d) were used to define genotype stability. The pooled error was used to test the hypothesis that the mean square deviation did not differ significantly from 0.05 and 0.01% probability levels. The t-test employing the standard error of regression coefficient against the hypothesis that it did not differ from 1.0. It was assumed that genotype effects were fixed and the year effects were random. The data on cane and sugar yield were recorded on plot basis and estimated in t/ha. The stability parameters were calculated by Eberhart & Russell's (1966) [1] joint regression model

Where Yij = is the mean of the i th variety at the j th environment, µ I = is the mean of the j th variety over all environments, β i = is the regression coefficient that measures the response of the j th variety to varying environments, I j = is the environmental index obtained as the mean of all varieties at the j th environment minus the grand mean and δ ij = is the deviation from regression of the i th variety at the j th environment.

The stability parameters, regression coefficient and mean square deviation were estimated as described below.

The regression coefficient (β i ): bi = Where, ∑ jYij Ij = is the sum of the product. ∑ j I 2 j = is the sum of squares

The mean square deviation (δ 2 d i ):

Where, = is the deviation from regression of the i th genotype at the j th environments s = number of location, t = number of varieties & e = estimate of pooled error and r = is the number of replications.

Environment Index (I j ) = Where ∑ jYij = is the total of all the varieties at j th locations.

Eberhart & Russell defined a stable genotype as the one which produced high mean yield with regression coefficient (bi) around unity and deviation from regression residual variance (S 2 d i ) near to zero. The estimate of deviations from regression suggests the degree of reliance that should be put to linear regression in interpretation of the data. If these values are significantly deviation from zero, the expected genotype cannot be predicted confidently or reliably. When deviations are not significant, the conclusion may be drawn by jointly considering the mean yield and regression values proposed by Finlay and Wilkinson (1963) [2] and Eberhart and Russell (1966) [1] that are summarized in table 1.

Regression	Stability	Mean yield	Remarks
β i = 1	Average	High	Well adapted to all environments or Desirable
β i = 1	Average	Low	Poorly adapted to all environments
β i > 1	Below average	High	Specifically adapted to favourable environments
β i < 1	Above average	High	Specifically adapted to unfavourable environments

Table text extracted from the original PDF; superscript letters are shown inline. The original table image is below.

View original table image

↗ Enlarge

Table 1Close ×

Regression values, stability type in relation to relation to mean yield.

Open full-size image ↗

Original paper tableSource PDF · page 2 ↗

Results and Discussion

Pooled analysis of variance (Table -2) revealed that genotype, environment and genotype x environment interaction (G x E) were highly significant for both cane yield (t/ha) and sugar yield (t/ha). Significant mean squares due to genotype x environment interactions indicated differential response of genotypes in different environments. It means a particular variety may not exhibit the same phenotypic performance under different environments or different varieties may respond differently to a specific environment. Similar findings were earlier reported by Koli et al. 2016 [6] and Naidu et al. 2017 [7] in sugarcane. Both linear and non-linear components of G x E interactions were also found significant for cane and sugar yield showing the importance of both linear (predictable) and non-linear (unpredictable) components in the expression of the traits. The linear component was significant as against the nonlinear components (Pooled deviation), which revealed that a large portion of G x E interaction was accounted for by linear regression although pooled deviation was significant. These results were in confirmation to those reported by Kimbeng et al.

2009 [5] , Tiwari et al. 2011 [9] and Koli et al. 2016 [6] in sugarcane. [4] , Naidu et al. (2017) [7] and Guddadamath et al. (2014) [3] in sugarcane. The estimates of mean performance (x), regression coefficient (bi) and deviation from regression ((S 2 di) are presented in Table -4. Considering the stability of a genotype, the three parameters viz, grand mean over the environments (x), unit regression coefficient (bi=1) and squared deviation from the regression (S 2 di = 0) were considered stable in performance.

Eberhart and Russell (1966) [1] defined a stable genotype which showed high mean yield, regression coefficient (bi) around unity and deviation from regression near to zero. Accordingly, the mean and deviation from regression of each variety were considered for stability and linear regression was used for testing the varietal response. a. Genotypes with high mean, bi = 1 with non-significant s 2 d are suitable for general adaption, i.e. suitable over all environmental conditions and they are considered as stable genotype. b. Genotypes with high mean, bi >1 with non-significant s 2 d are considered as below average in stability. Such genotypes tend to respond favorably to better environments but give poor yield in unfavourable environments. Hence, they are suitable for favorable environments. c. Genotypes with low mean, bi<1 with non-significant s 2 d do not respond favorably to improved environmental conditions and hence, it could be regarded as specifically adapted to poor environments.

d. Genotypes with any bi value with significant s 2 d are unstable.

In the present study, promising variety Co 0238 has high mean for both cane yield and sugar yield (83.05, 10.17) with bi =1.0 and non-significant s 2 d = 0 (Table 4), indicated that this varieties found better responsive to all the environments and were considered as stable varieties.

S. No.	Name of Varieties	Cane Yield (t/ha.)	—	—	Sugar Yield (t/ha.)	—	—
		Mean	bi	S-2di	Mean	bi	S-2di
1.	CoJ 64	76.38	1.72	2.08	8.90	0.59	0.04
2.	Co 0238	83.05	1.02	0.17	10.17	1.01	0.02
3.	Co 05009	79.64	1.69	2.65	9.72	1.30	-0.03
4.	CoS 767	79.44	0.34	-2.64	9.05	2.08	0.06
5.	CoS 8436	73.83	0.91	-0.90	8.70	0.47	-0.03
6.	Co Pant 97222	75.91	0.90	-1.45	9.08	0.45	-0.06
7.	Co 05011	75.17	0.39	-0.28	9.73	1.09	0.04

Table text extracted from the original PDF; superscript letters are shown inline. The original table image is below.

View original table image

↗ Enlarge

Table 4Close ×

Stability parameter for grain yield (t/ha) of popular sugarcane varieties in Zone Vth of Rajasthan.

Open full-size image ↗

Original paper tableSource PDF · page 3 ↗

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementThe first author is grateful thank to Director Research, Agriculture University, Kota, Zonal Director Research, ARS, Kota, and also grateful thanks to Project Coordinator, IISR, Lucknow, for providing necessary facilities and financial support to conduct the research work.

Figures and tables from the paper

Source of Variation	Degree of Freedom	Mean sum of squares	—
		Cane yield (t/ha)	Sugar yield (t/ha)
Total	34	51.616**	1.352**
Genotype	6	154.221**	4.364**
Environment	4	28.611**	6.405**
GXE	24	8.681**	4.163**
E + (G X E)	28	4.191*	0.081*
E linear	1	5.450*	0.077*
G X E Linear	6	7.092*	0.103*
Pooled Deviation	21	3.302**	0.075**
Pooled Error	60	0.170**	0.003**

Table text extracted from the original PDF; superscript letters are shown inline. The original table image is below.

View original table image

↗ Enlarge

Table 2Close ×

Pooled analysis of variance for cane yield (t/ha) and sugar yield (t/ha) in seven popular varieties of sugarcane.

Open full-size image ↗

Original paper tableSource PDF · page 3 ↗

S. No.	Name of Varieties	Cane yield (t/ha)	—	Sugar yield (t/ha)	—
		Mean	Std. deviation	Mean	Std. deviation
1.	CoJ 64	76.38	2.86	8.90	2.99
2.	Co 0238	83.05	1.96	10.17	3.03
3.	Co 05009	79.64	2.91	9.72	2.37
4.	CoS 767	79.44	0.86	9.05	4.26
5.	CoS 8436	73.83	1.74	8.70	1.71
6.	Co Pant 97222	75.91	1.60	9.08	1.08
7.	Co 05011	75.17	1.60	9.73	3.21
	Average	76.94	2.50	9.34	2.67

Table text extracted from the original PDF; superscript letters are shown inline. The original table image is below.

View original table image

↗ Enlarge

Table 3Close ×

Mean and Standard deviation for the cane and sugar yield among seven varieties of sugarcane.

Open full-size image ↗

Original paper tableSource PDF · page 3 ↗

1. Eberhart SA, Russell WL. Stability parameters for comparing varieties. Crop Sci. 1966;6:36-40.
2. Finley KW, Wilkinson GE. The analysis of adaptation in a plant breeding programme. Australian journal of Agricultural Research. 1963;14:742-54.
3. Guddaamath SG, Patel SB, Khadi BM. Stability and regression analysis in elite genotypes of sugarcane (S.spp. hybrid complex). African journal of Agriculture Research. 2014;9(37):2846-2853.
4. Imtiaz AK, Nighat S, Raza S, Yasmine S, Sajida B. Environmental interaction of sugarcane genotype and yield stability analysis of sugarcane. Pak. Journal of Bot. 2013;45(5):1617-1622.
5. Kimbeng CA, Zhoul MM, Silva JA. Genotype X environment interaction and resources allocation in sugarcane yield traits in the Rio-Grande valley region of Texas. Journal of American Society of Sugarcane technologist. 2009;29:11-24.
6. Koli NR, Bagri RK, Meena BS, Kumhar BL. Studies on stability parameter and sustainability index for selecting stable genotypes of sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.). Electronic journal of Plant Breeding. 2016;18(1):137-139.
7. Naidu PN, Khan MGM, Jokhan AD. Assessment of sugarcane varieties for their stability and yield potential in Fiji. The South Pacific Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences. 2017;35(2):20-32.
8. Sabaghnia N, Dehghani H, Sabaghpour SH. Non parametric methods for interpreting genotype x environment interaction of lentil genotypes. Crop sci. 2006;46:1100-1106.
9. Tiwari DK, Panday P, Singh RK, Singh SP, Singh SB. Genotype x environment interaction and stability analysis in elite clones of sugancane (S. officinarum L.). International Journal of Plant Breeding & Genetics. 2011;5(1):93-98.