Abstract

One of the main challenges in plant breeding programs is the efficient quantification of the genotype-by-environment interaction (GEI). The presence of significant GEI may create difficulties for breeders in the selection and recommendation of superior genotypes for a wide environmental network. Among the diverse statistical procedures developed for this purpose, we highlight those based on mixed models and factor analysis that are called factor analytic (FA) models. However, some inferential issues are related to the factor analytic model, such as Heywood cases that make the model non-identifiable. Moreover, the representation of the loads and factors in the conventional biplot does not involve any measurement of uncertainty. In this work, we propose dealing with the FA model using the Bayesian framework with direct sampling of factor loadings via spectral decomposition; this guarantees identifiability in the estimation process and eliminates the need for the rotationality of factor loadings or imposition of any ad hoc constraints. We used simulated and real data to illustrate the method’s application in multi-environment trials (MET) and to compare it with traditional FA mixed models on controlled unbalancing. In general, the Bayesian FA model was robust under different simulated unbalanced levels, presenting the superior predictive ability of missing data when compared to competing models, such as those based on FA mixed models. In addition, for some scenarios, the classical FA mixed model failed in estimating the full FA model, illustrating the parametric problems of convergence in these models. Our results suggest that Bayesian factorial models might be successfully used in plant breeding for MET analysis.

Highlights

  • The recommendation of new genotypes for commercial use requires confident and accurate estimations of genetic parameters such as marginal genotypic values, stability, adaptability, disease and environmental stress resistance

  • Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) chains with 65,560 iterations were simulated for the BFA model

  • The main difference between the BFA method and the classical mixed model factor analytic (FA) lies in the BFA model assumptions that are founded on factor analysis via spectral decomposition of the genetic covariance matrix

Read more

Summary

Objectives

The aim of our study is not to provide an intensive comparison of the predictive ability between the BAF and FA-based mixed models, the results showed that even using different likelihood approaches for FA mixed models (AI and EM), the BFA outperformed these models in most of the missing data scenarios (S1–S6 Figs). It was not our intention to give a fine perspective of model selection in FA bayesian framework; instead, our aim was to provide a bayesian perspective of FA models in MET analysis

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call