Abdel-Karim,, A., Salem, M. (2003). ESTIMATING PARAMETERS OF GENOTYPIC AND PHENOTYPIC STABILITY FOR SOME BREAD WHEAT GENOTYPES. Journal of Plant Production, 28(9), 6603-6617. doi: 10.21608/jpp.2003.252709
A. A. Abdel-Karim,; Manal M. Salem. "ESTIMATING PARAMETERS OF GENOTYPIC AND PHENOTYPIC STABILITY FOR SOME BREAD WHEAT GENOTYPES". Journal of Plant Production, 28, 9, 2003, 6603-6617. doi: 10.21608/jpp.2003.252709
Abdel-Karim,, A., Salem, M. (2003). 'ESTIMATING PARAMETERS OF GENOTYPIC AND PHENOTYPIC STABILITY FOR SOME BREAD WHEAT GENOTYPES', Journal of Plant Production, 28(9), pp. 6603-6617. doi: 10.21608/jpp.2003.252709
Abdel-Karim,, A., Salem, M. ESTIMATING PARAMETERS OF GENOTYPIC AND PHENOTYPIC STABILITY FOR SOME BREAD WHEAT GENOTYPES. Journal of Plant Production, 2003; 28(9): 6603-6617. doi: 10.21608/jpp.2003.252709
ESTIMATING PARAMETERS OF GENOTYPIC AND PHENOTYPIC STABILITY FOR SOME BREAD WHEAT GENOTYPES
2Scientific Computation Section, Centeral Laboratory of Design and Statistical analysis, Agricultural Research Center, Giza, Egypt
Abstract
Genotype x environment (GE) interaction is a challeng to plant breeders because it causes difficultes in selecting genotypes evaluated in diverse environments. When GE interaction is significant, its cause, nature and implication must be carefully considered. The objective of this study was determine the effect of GE interaction on grain yield, days to heading and maturity heading of bread wheat genotypes as well as stability and adaptability of each genotypes. Phenotypic and genotypic stability parameters were computed as outlined by Eberhart and Russell (1966) and Tai (1971), respectively.
Regading phenotypic stability according to Eberhart and Russell (1960), the results indicated that the following genotypes characterized by general and specific stability.
Genotypes no. (1) Giza 165, (2) KAUZ* 2/ TRAP// KAUZ, (3) KAUZ *2 /YACO// KAUZ, (4) KAUZ* 2/ MNV// KAUZ, (5) Tevee ‘S’/Kaus ‘S’, (6) Mexipak 65, (7) Kaus ‘S’, (8) MYNA/VUL//TURACO/3/TURACO, (10) CHAM 2/VEE ‘S’ and (12) Tevee ‘v’// Vee ‘s’/pvn ‘S’ for grain yield.
Genotypes no. (2) KAUZ* 2/ TRAP// KAUZ, (5) Tevee ‘S’/Kaus ‘S’, (6) Mexipak 65, (9) Prl ‘S’/Vee ‘S’/3/P106.19//Soty/Jt*3 and (12) Tevee ‘v’//Vee ‘s’/pvn ‘S’ for heading date.
Genotypes no. (2) KAUZ* 2/ TRAP//KAUZ, (4) KAUZ* 2/MNV//KAUZ and (12) Tevee ‘v’//Vee ‘s’/pvn ‘S’ for maturity date.
Concerning genotypic stability the results showed that genotypes no (1) Giza 165, (4) KAUZ* 2/ MNV// KAUZ and (11) Seri 82//Shuha ‘S’ had a degree of below average stability, genotypes no. (3) KAUZ *2 /YACO// KAUZ, (7) Kaus ‘S’, (8) MYNA/VUL//TURACO/3/TURACO, (10) CHAM 2/VEE ‘S’ and (12) Tevee ‘v’// Vee ‘s’/pvn ‘S’ showed a stability of above average degree and genotypes no. (6) Mexipak 65, and 9 had on average degree of stability for grain yield. Genotypes no. (9) Prl ‘S’/Vee ‘S’/3/P106.19//Soty/Jt*3 and (12) Tevee ‘v’// Vee ‘s’/pvn ‘S’ showed stability of below average degree and genotypes no. (1) Giza 165, (8) MYNA/VUL//TURACO/3/TURACO and (10) CHAM 2/VEE ‘S’ showed stability of an average degree for maturity date. On other hand, degrees of below average stability were performed by genotypes no. 4, 6, 9 and 10 with respect to heading date.
View on SCiNiTO
Top