AMMI analysis identifies key genotype and environment interactions, highlighting performance stability among wheat genotypes.
AMMI analysis showed highly significant effects of environments, genotypes x environments interactions and genotypes for the field evaluation of ten genotypes at fifteen locations of the zone. Environments effects held largest share of 76.7 per cent followed by interactions of 11.4 per cent the total sum of squares. ASV pointed stable performance of wheat genotypes HI1650, GW547, HI1636 while lower values of MASV measure was observed for HI1669, NWS2194, HI1650 and the superiority index measure had observed the suitability of HI1650, GW547, HI1669 genotypes. Large values of GAI was observed for HI1669, HI1650, MACS6768 and genotypes HI1669, HI1650, GW322 expressed more values of HMGV values. Lower values of Si1 was exhibited by HI1650, NWS2194, GW547 and of Si2 had shown by HI1650, HI1669, HI1636 genotypes. Significant differences among the genotypes ranks was confirmed by sum of the values of Z1 only at 5 per cent level of significance. Hierarchical clustering observed that IPC3 had divided the measures as first group consistent of BLUP based analytic measures Meanb, HMRPGV*Mean, GAI, RPGV*Mean, with interaction principal components as well as NPi (3) , NPi (2), Si6 whereas the ASV, MASV, WAASB, IPC4, IPC5, NPi (1), NPi (4) along with Si1, Si4, Si7, Si5, Si2, Si3 measures in second group. Biplot analysis expressed the cluster of BLUP based analytic measures while adjacent cluster of Si6, NPi(3), NPi(2) was also placed in same quadrant.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Verma et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: