GGE biplot vs. AMMI analysis of genotype-by-environment data

被引:840
作者
Yan, Weikai
Kang, Manjit S.
Ma, Baoluo
Woods, Sheila
Cornelius, Paul L.
机构
[1] AAFC, ECORC, Ottawa, ON K1A 0C6, Canada
[2] Louisiana State Univ, Ctr Agr, Dept Agr & Environm Management, Baton Rouge, LA 70803 USA
[3] AAFC, CRC, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2M9, Canada
[4] Univ Kentucky, Dept Plant & Soil Sci, Lexington, KY 40506 USA
[5] Univ Kentucky, Dept Stat, Lexington, KY 40506 USA
关键词
D O I
10.2135/cropsci2006.06.0374
中图分类号
S3 [农学(农艺学)];
学科分类号
0901 ;
摘要
The use of genotype main effect (G) plus genotype-by-environment (GE) interaction (G+GE) biplot analysis by plant breeders and other agricultural researchers has increased dramatically during the past 5 yr for analyzing multi-environment trial (MET) data. Recently, however, its legitimacy was questioned by a proponent of Additive Main Effect and Multiplicative Interaction (AMMI) analysis. The objectives of this review are: (i) to compare GGE biplot analysis and AMMI analysis on three aspects of genotype-by-environment data (GED) analysis, namely mega-environment analysis, genotype evaluation, and test-environment evaluation; (ii) to discuss whether G and GE should be combined or separated in these three aspects of GED analysis; and (iii) to discuss the role and importance of model diagnosis in biplot analysis of GED. Our main conclusions are: (i) both GGE biplot analysis and AMMI analysis combine rather than separate G and GE in megaenvironment analysis and genotype evaluation, (ii) the GGE biplot is superior to the AMMI1 graph in mega-environment analysis and genotype evaluation because it explains more G+GE and has the inner-product property of the biplot, (iii) the discriminating power vs. representativeness view of the GGE biplot is effective in evaluating test environments, which is not possible in AMMI analysis, and (iv) model diagnosis for each dataset is useful, but accuracy gain from model diagnosis should not be overstated.
引用
收藏
页码:643 / 655
页数:13
相关论文
共 49 条
  • [11] A molecular linkage map with associated QTLs from a hulless x covered spring oat population
    De Koeyer, DL
    Tinker, NA
    Wight, CP
    Deyl, J
    Burrows, VD
    O'Donoughue, LS
    Lybaert, A
    Molnar, SJ
    Armstrong, KC
    Fedak, G
    Wesenberg, DM
    Rossnagel, BG
    McElroy, AR
    [J]. THEORETICAL AND APPLIED GENETICS, 2004, 108 (07) : 1285 - 1298
  • [12] Additive main effect and multiplicative interaction analysis of national turfgrass performance trials: II. Cultivar recommendations
    Ebdon, JS
    Gauch, HG
    [J]. CROP SCIENCE, 2002, 42 (02) : 497 - 506
  • [13] Additive main effect and multiplicative interaction analysis of national turfgrass performance trials: I. Interpretation of genotype X environment interaction
    Ebdon, JS
    Gauch, HG
    [J]. CROP SCIENCE, 2002, 42 (02) : 489 - 496
  • [14] SELECTION OF STABLE CULTIVARS USING A SAFETY-1ST RULE
    ESKRIDGE, KM
    [J]. CROP SCIENCE, 1990, 30 (02) : 369 - 374
  • [15] GABRIEL KR, 1971, BIOMETRIKA, V58, P453, DOI 10.2307/2334381
  • [16] GACH HG, 1992, STAT ANAL REGIONAL Y
  • [17] Gauch H. G. Jr., 1996, P85
  • [18] Identifying mega-environments and targeting genotypes
    Gauch, HG
    Zobel, RW
    [J]. CROP SCIENCE, 1997, 37 (02) : 311 - 326
  • [19] Statistical analysis of yield trials by AMMI and GGE
    Gauch, Hugh G., Jr.
    [J]. CROP SCIENCE, 2006, 46 (04) : 1488 - 1500
  • [20] Adaptability and Stability of Bean Cultivars as Determined via Yield-Stability Statistic and GGE Biplot Analysis
    Kang, Manjit S.
    Aggarwal, Vas D.
    Chirwa, Rowland M.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CROP IMPROVEMENT, 2006, 15 (01) : 97 - 120