Multi-environment trials (MET) are an important activity in agriculture to identify superior cultivars for production. Visual evaluation of MET data via GGEbiplot software makes the cultivar recommendation easy. Our objectives were to evaluate performance of 100 soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] cultivars belonging to five maturity groups (MG II through MG VI) from MET data from Virginia. Analyses of variance revealed significant differences among cultivars in MG II, MG IV, and MG V. The study was conducted in 1993 and 1994 at two locations [Petersburg (PBG) and Suffolk (SFK), Virginia]. Cultivar-by-environment interaction was only significant for MG IV and MG V. In MG II, the highest yielding cultivars were: ‘CN-290’ (at Suffolk in 1993), ‘Sloan’ (at Petersburg in 1993 and 1994), and ‘Vickery’ (at Suffolk in 1994). In MG IV, ‘Union’ was the best cultivar for 93PBG and 94SFK. ‘Stafford’ was superior at 93SFK and Cutler at 94PBG. Being closest to the ideal cultivar, ‘Union’, ‘Morgan’, and ‘Egyptian’ were the most stable cultivars across environments. For MG V, ‘Essex’ yielded the highest in two environments (93PBG and 94PBG), ‘Marcus’ in 94SFK, and ‘Hutcheson’ in 93SFK. Hutcheson was the most stable cultivar. Cultivar-by-trait analyses of yield, oil, protein, harvest index, and 100-seed weight revealed that in MG II, cultivar ‘SS-201’ had highest yield, ‘Kenwood’ highest oil, ‘Marcus’ highest harvest index, ‘LS-201’ highest 100-seed weight, and ‘Henry’ highest protein. In other maturity groups, the following cultivars were superior: MG III-‘Ross’ (yield), ‘Hayes’ (oil), ‘Kanrich’ (100-seed weight), and ‘BSR-302’ (protein); MG IV-‘Cutler’ (yield and harvest index), ‘Union’ (100-seed weight), ‘Pennyrile’ (protein), and ‘Stafford’ and ‘Wabash’ (oil); MG V-‘MCN-500’ (protein), ‘Hutcheson’ (yield, oil, 100-seed weight, and harvest index); and MG VI-‘Davis’ (yield), ‘Gail’ (oil), ‘Sohoma’ (protein, 100-seed weight, and harvest index). Soybean breeders should benefit from this information in selecting appropriate parents to improve specific traits.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kang et al. (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: