Genotype × year (G × Y) interactions significantly complicate successful variety selection, especially in dryland (rain‐dependent) ecosystems experiencing intense climate fluctuations. In this study, the grain yield, agronomic performance, temporal response patterns, and parametric stability of 10 different spring bread wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes were comprehensively evaluated over three consecutive growing seasons (2019–2022) at a temperate dryland farming location using AMMI, GGE biplot, and BLUP‐based linear mixed model (LMM/WAASB) approaches. The combined analysis of variance (ANOVA) results revealed highly significant differences ( p < 0.01) in terms of genotype (G), year (Y), and G × Y interaction for almost all of the agronomic characteristics examined, indicating that yield potential is directly governed by interannual climate differences. AMMI and WAASB indices revealed high genetic diversity in terms of G × Y interaction variance among the tested lines, whereas GGE biplot analysis characterized temporal response patterns of the genotypes across the three tested seasons. In all the complementary analytical methods applied, SKW‐356 showed relatively consistent performance across the three tested seasons, with low interaction scores and a position close to the ‘ideal genotype’ center in the biplot analyses. However, these results represent temporal stability within the single testing location and should not be interpreted as evidence of broad environmental adaptation. While some other elite genotypes (particularly the G5 and G8 lines) have shown high yield potential in certain favourable years, they exhibited greater year‐to‐year yield variation across the contrasting seasonal conditions. Based on these multiple and complementary stability analyses, SKW‐356 may be considered a promising candidate for further multi‐location and multi‐year evaluation, while its performance under broader environmental conditions and its potential use in breeding programs require additional validation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wani et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: