Uni- and multivariate methods applied to the study of the adaptability and stability of white oat

Rother, Vianei; Verdi, Cezar Augusto; Thurow, Liamara Bahr; Carvalho, Ivan Ricardo; Oliveira, Victoria Freitas de; Maia, Luciano Carlos da; Venske, Eduardo; Pegoraro, Camila; Oliveira, Antonio Costa de

doi:10.1590/S1678-3921.pab2019.v54.00656

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

GENETICS • Pesq. agropec. bras. 54 • 2019 • https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-3921.pab2019.v54.00656 copy

Uni- and multivariate methods applied to the study of the adaptability and stability of white oat

Métodos uni e multivariados aplicados ao estudo de adaptabilidade e estabilidade em aveia-branca

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract:

The objective of this work was to compare uni- and multivariate biometric methods to evaluate the adaptability and stability of an important group of white oat (Avena sativa) cultivars grown in Southern Brazil. The used experimental design was a randomized complete block, in a factorial arrangement of 12 environments x 7 cultivars, with three replicates. The analysis of variance and the methods of Eberhart & Russel, Annicchiarico, and the harmonic mean of the relative performance of predicted genetic values (MHPRVG) were assessed. In the general comparison of the methods, the 'UPFA Gaudéria' and 'URS Guapa' genotypes were more stable regarding grain yield. The 'UPFA Gaudéria' and 'URS-21' genotypes stood out for hectoliter weight, presenting the best performances by the methods of Annicchiarico and the MHPRVG. For thousand-grain weight, all methods showed similar results, indicating that the 'UPFA Gaudéria' genotype presented the best results. The 'URS Guapa' genotype was superior when using the methods of Eberhart & Russel, Annicchiarico, and the MHPRVG. The uni- and multivariate methods evaluated are suitable to estimate with high confidence the adaptability and stability of cultivars for each targeted grain production, yield, and quality.

Index terms:
Avena sativa; environment; genotype; plant breeding

Embrapa Secretaria de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento; Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira Caixa Postal 040315, 70770-901 Brasília DF Brazil, Tel. +55 61 3448-1813, Fax +55 61 3340-5483 - Brasília - DF - Brazil
E-mail: pab@embrapa.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] *Corresponding author: acostol@terra.com.br

Growing environments	Harvest season	Phytosanitary management⁽¹⁾	Accumulated rainfall (mm)	Mean temperature (°C)
I	2009	F	527.9	13.74
II	2009	WF	527.9	13.74
III	2010	F	524.4	14.08
IV	2010	WF	524.4	14.08
V	2011	F	452.4	13.58
VI	2011	WF	452.4	13.58
VII	2012	F	541.4	14.96
VIII	2012	WF	541.4	14.96
IX	2013	F	575.4	12.30
X	2013	WF	575.4	12.30
XI	2014	F	821.2	15.44
XII	2014	WF	821.2	15.44

Source of variation	DF	Mean square
Source of variation	DF	GY (kg ha^-1)	HW (kg hL^-1)	TGW (g)
Blocks	2	481,994.1	9.53	1.25
Growing environments (E)	11	18,011,487.4*	405.77*	395.23*
White oat genotypes (G)	6	196,274.3	49.95*	128.44*
E x G	66	313,391.5*	32.04*	39.75*
Residue	167	122229.30	6.04	6.86
CV (%)		16.80	5.29	8.09

Genotype	Eberhart & Russel (1966)EBERHART, S.A.; RUSSELL, W.A. Stability parameters for comparing varieties. Crop Science, v.6, p.36-40, 1966. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1966.0011183X000600010011x. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1966.0011...				Annicchiarico (1992)ANNICCHIARICO, P. Cultivar adaptation and recommendation from alfafa trials in Northern Italy. Journal of Genetics and Breeding, v.46, p.269-278, 1992.			MHPRVG×GM
Genotype	${\hat{β}}_{0 (i)}$	${\hat{β}}_{1 (i)}$	${\hat{δ}}^{2}$	R² (%)	Favorable	Unfavorable	General	MHPRVG×GM
	GY
Barbarasul	1994	0.91^ns	-2663.44^ns	95.64	97.34	100.05	98.70	2020.88
Brisasul	2130	0.90^ns	95664.27**	85.79	98.77	115.83	107.30	2124.39
UPFA Gaudéria	2098	1.16^ns	26331.54^ns	95.28	105.57	91.00	98.28	2009.39
URS-21	2096	0.82^ns	38779.63*	89.51	97.68	121.07	109.38	2135.13
URS Guapa	2124	0.91^ns	79768.09**	87.33	101.73	114.46	108.09	2136.14
URS Tarimba	1945	1.24*	-17431.81^ns	98.52	101.00	70.49	85.75	1745.19
URS Taura	1967	1.08^ns	59575.75**	92.12	97.90	87.10	92.50	1859.52
	HW
Barbarasul	45.78	1.06^ns	1.42^ns	83.75	98.06	99.06	98.65	45.75
Brisasul	45.96	1.12^ns	1.69^ns	84.45	99.59	98.50	98.95	45.86
UPFA Gaudéria	48.05	1.06^ns	3.18*	79.09	104.34	103.09	103.61	47.78
URS-21	47.48	0.63^ns	4.90*	51.76	100.78	104.15	102.75	47.35
URS Guapa	44.40	0.70^ns	17.40**	34.12	94.57	97.07	96.03	44.39
URS Tarimba	46.12	1.22^ns	6.31**	77.28	100.60	98.24	99.22	45.91
URS Taura	46.84	1.20^ns	4.70*	79.86	102.07	99.88	100.79	46.57
	TGW
Barbarasul	29.75	0.59*	6.41**	47.10	87.74	98.15	92.94	29.88
Brisasul	30.99	1.01^ns	30.76**	40.98	101.15	90.79	95.97	30.54
UPFA Gaudéria	34.42	1.35^ns	3.41**	87.67	109.00	103.67	106.33	34.08
URS-21	30.87	0.80^ns	2.00*	76.98	93.79	98.50	96.15	30.93
URS Guapa	34.84	1.00^ns	18.92**	51.06	107.71	109.07	108.39	34.43
URS Tarimba	31.90	1.31^ns	-0.09^ns	94.61	100.51	96.17	98.34	31.59
URS Taura	32.79	0.94^ns	1.27^ns	84.67	100.11	103.65	101.88	32.73

Eigenvalue estimate		E	Factor load after rotation
$\hat{λ}$	Proportion (%)	E	Acc (%)	Factor I	Factor II	Factor III	Factor IV	C	EI
Grain yield
4.14	34.46	34.46	I	-0.19	0.91	-0.06	-0.27	0.95	-370.15
3.07	25.55	60.01	II	0.11	0.90	-0.18	0.04	0.86	-309.96
1.68	13.99	74.00	III	-0.14	0.12	0.63	0.10	0.44	519.74
1.37	11.38	85.38	IV	0.84	0.13	0.19	-0.17	0.79	180.85
1.05	8.79	94.17	V	0.95	-0.26	0.07	0.06	0.98	1955.42
0.70	5.83	100.00	VI	-0.36	0.39	-0.83	0.08	0.98	1153.11
0.00	0.00	100.00	VII	-0.04	-0.91	-0.18	-0.18	0.89	313.67
0.00	0.00	100.00	VIII	-0.49	-0.64	0.49	0.30	0.98	-965.73
0.00	0.00	100.00	IX	0.04	0.19	0.14	0.88	0.83	317.49
0.00	0.00	100.00	X	-0.28	-0.31	-0.03	0.81	0.83	-273.72
0.00	0.00	100.00	XI	-0.81	-0.22	0.46	0.01	0.92	-1079.54
0.00	0.00	100.00	XII	-0.65	0.00	0.46	0.39	0.79	-1441.20
Hectoliter weight
4.54	37.87	37.87	I	0.20	0.15	0.83	0.02	0.75	0.50
2.65	22.11	59.98	II	0.67	-0.01	0.71	-0.15	0.97	-0.42
1.91	15.88	75.86	III	0.02	0.83	-0.38	-0.40	0.99	-0.67
1.27	10.58	86.44	IV	0.88	0.21	0.32	0.22	0.96	-4.53
1.07	8.90	95.33	V	0.16	0.92	0.26	0.72	0.94	6.10
0.56	4.67	100.00	VI	0.73	-0.01	0.58	0.26	0.94	4.07
0.00	0.00	100.00	VII	0.04	-0.07	0.15	0.95	0.94	5.00
0.00	0.00	100.00	VIII	-0.78	-0.28	0.16	0.28	0.79	-7.89
0.00	0.00	100.00	IX	-0.67	0.40	-0.14	0.24	0.69	5.21
0.00	0.00	100.00	X	-0.08	-0.07	0.94	0.05	0.90	-1.26
0.00	0.00	100.00	XI	0.81	0.00	-0.05	0.41	0.82	-0.41
0.00	0.00	100.00	XII	0.08	-0.50	-0.23	0.61	0.68	-5.71
Thousand-grain weight
6.72	56.01	56.01	I	0.86	-0.25	0.24	.	0.86	0.16
1.90	15.84	71.85	II	0.19	-0.43	0.81	.	0.88	-1.80
1.31	10.95	82.80	III	0.82	-0.13	0.54	.	0.98	3.63
1.18	9.83	92.63	IV	0.18	-0.10	0.88	.	0.82	-0.37
0.68	5.67	98.30	V	0.77	-0.23	0.57	.	0.96	6.86
0.20	1.70	100.00	VI	0.94	-0.14	0.26	.	0.97	5.28
0.00	0.00	100.00	VII	0.45	0.28	0.58	.	0.62	-0.57
0.00	0.00	100.00	VIII	0.58	-0.77	0.24	.	0.99	-6.21
0.00	0.00	100.00	IX	-0.93	0.33	0.00	.	0.97	3.69
0.00	0.00	100.00	X	0.09	0.81	-0.21	.	0.71	1.44
0.00	0.00	100.00	XI	0.35	-0.84	-0.02	.	0.82	-4.67
0.00	0.00	100.00	XII	0.18	-0.57	0.03	.	0.35	-7.44

Environment	Eberhart & Russel⁽²⁾			Annicchiarico⁽²⁾			MHPRVG×GM⁽³⁾
Environment	GY	HW	TGW	GY	HW	TGW	GY	HW	TGW
I	U	F	F	U	F	F	1,675.2	46.91	32.4
II	U	U	U	U	U	U	1,741.0	45.95	30.4
III	F	U	F	F	U	F	2,570.7	45.7	35.8
IV	F	U	U	F	U	U	2,231.8	41.8	31.8
V	F	F	F	F	F	F	4,006.4	52.47	39.0
VI	F	F	F	F	F	F	3,204.1	50.4	37.5
VII	F	F	U	F	F	U	2,364.6	51.3	31.6
VIII	U	U	U	U	U	U	1,085.2	38.4	26.0
IX	F	F	F	F	F	F	2,368.4	51.5	35.9
X	U	U	F	U	U	F	1,777.2	45.1	33.6
XI	U	U	U	U	U	U	971.4	45.9	27.5
XII	U	U	U	U	U	U	581.1	40.7	24.7