Evaluation of genotype×environment interaction and stability of corn hybrids and relationship among univariate parametric methods

Abstract

Changizi, M., Choukan, R., Heravan, E. M., Bihamta, M. R. and Darvish, F. 2014. Evaluation of genotype×environment interaction and stability of corn hybrids and relationship among univariate parametric methods. Can. J. Plant Sci. 94: 1255–1267. There have been many approaches available in multi-location crop variety trial. However, the relationship among these approaches is not understood. In this study, therefore, grain yields of 16 corn hybrids were measured in 12 locations in Iran in 2011 and 2012 in order to compare the 23 parametric methods and to assess stability and adaptability of the hybrids. The combined ANOVA indicated that variances due to the genotypes, environments and genotype×environment interaction were substantially significant, which represents great variation among them. Principal component analysis based on rank correlation matrix indicated that stability methods can be classified into four groups. The group related to the dynamic concept and strongly associated with mean grain yield consisted of the measures, superiority index (Pi), desirability index (DI), geometric adaptability index (GAI) and genotypic stability (Di2). This group was more useful in agronomic goals in comparison with other methods. The second group also indicated the dynamic concept contained slope of regression models. The third group reflected the static concept included, the environmental variance (EV), the variance in regression deviation (S2di) and type IV stability concept ([Formula: see text]). The fourth group impressed concurrently by grain yield and stability included the measures coefficient of variability (CV), Wrick's ecovalence (W2), Shukla's stability variance (SH), Plaisted and Peterson's parameter (pp59), Plaisted's parameter (p60), yield reliability index (Ii), residual MS of regression models and coefficient of determination (R2). Based on both concepts of stability (dynamic and static), hybrids (KLM76002/3×MO17), (KLM77002/10-5-1×K19/1) and (K47/2×MO17) were the most stable and (KSC704), (KSC720 (K74/1×K19)) and (K48/3×K18) were found to be the most adaptable to favorable environments. The methods of Pi, Di2, DI and GAI were more useful and more convenient than other methods. [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] showed an acceptable static concept of stability methods whereas study [Formula: see text] was more efficient than [Formula: see text].