ارزیابی سازگاری و پایداری عملکرد ژنوتیپ‌‌های لوبیا چیتی (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) با استفاده از روش‌‌های AMMI و REML/BLUP

نوع مقاله : مقالات پژوهشی

نویسندگان

بهروز اسدی ¹

سیده سودابه شبیری ²

علی اکبر اسدی ²

فرود صالحی ³

حسین استرکی ⁴

¹ بخش تحقیقات علوم زراعی و باغی، مرکز تحقیقات و آموزش کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی استان مرکزی، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، اراک، ایران

² بخش تحقیقات علوم زراعی و باغی، مرکز تحقیقات و آموزش کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی زنجان، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، زنجان. ایران

³ بخش تحقیقات علوم زراعی و باغی، مرکز تحقیقات و آموزش کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی چهارمحال و بختیاری، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، اصفهان، ایران

⁴ بخش تحقیقات علوم زراعی و باغی، مرکز تحقیقات و آموزش کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی استان لرستان، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، لرستان، ایران

10.22067/ijpr.2026.97257.1126

چکیده

شناسایی و معرفی ارقام پایدار با عملکرد دانه بالا در شرایط محیطی متفاوت از اولویت‌های برنامه‌های اصلاحی لوبیا (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) می‌باشد. روش‌های مختلفی جهت ارزیابی اثر متقابل ژنوتیپ‌ × محیط وجود دارد، ولی بهترین نتیجه زمانی حاصل می‌شود که یک ژنوتیپ با روش‌های مختلف ارزیابی، نتیجه مشابهی از نظر پایداری نشان دهد. به همین منظور، جهت مقایسه عملکرد دانه و سازگاری ژنوتیپ‌های لوبیا، 12 ژنوتیپ لوبیا چیتی به همراه رقم کوشا در قالب طرح بلوک‌های کامل تصادفی با سه تکرار در چهار منطقه خمین، بروجرد، شهرکرد و زنجان به مدت دو سال کشت شدند. جهت تعیین پایداری و سازگاری ژنوتیپ‌ها از روش‌های چندمتغیره AMMI و مدل مخلوط خطی مبتنی بر BLUP و محاسبه کمیت‌های پایداری WAASBiو WAASBYi برای کمّی‌سازی پایداری استفاده گردید. تجزیه واریانس مرکب نشان داد که اثرات متقابل ژنوتیپ × مکان، سال × مکان و ژنوتیپ × سال × مکان معنی‌دار بودند. اثر اصلی ژنوتیپ، اثر اصلی محیط و اثر متقابل ژنوتیپ × محیط به‌ترتیب 15، 39 و 40 درصد از مجموع مربعات کل را تبیین کردند. تجزیه واریانس AMMI نشان داد که اولین و دومین مؤلفه اصلی 76 درصد از مجموع مربعات اثر متقابل ژنوتیپ × محیط را تبیین کردند. ژنوتیپ‌های G11، G9 و G6 دارای IPCA1 نزدیک به صفر بودند و از بین آن‌ها ژنوتیپ G9 دارای عملکرد بالاتر از میانگین عملکرد کل بود که به‌عنوان ژنوتیپ‌ پایدار با سازگاری عمومی بالا برای تمامی محیط‌ها معرفی شد. ژنوتیپ‌های G8، G6 و G11 دارای کمترین مقادیر IPCA2 بودند؛ بنابراین با توجه به عملکرد ژنوتیپ‌ها، ژنوتیپ‌ G6 را نیز می‌توان به‌عنوان ژنوتیپ پایدار در تمامی محیط‌ها معرفی کرد. براساس بای‌پلات AMMI2، ژنوتیپ‌ G12 با محیط‌ Shah1 و Zan2، ژنوتیپ‌های G2، G3 و G4 با محیط‌Boro1، ژنوتیپ‌های G9 و G13 با محیط‌های Khom1 و Khom2 و ژنوتیپ‌های G1 و G8 با محیط Boro2 سازگاری نشان دادند. براساس معیار گزینش هم‌زمان مبتنی بر میانگین عملکرد دانه و شاخص پایداری WAASB، ژنوتیپ‌های G7، G9، G8، G6، G1 و G3 با داشتن بیشترین مقدار WAASBY ژنوتیپ‌های پایدار و دارای عملکرد دانه بالا بودند. براساس بای‌پلات عملکرد دانه در برابر میانگین وزنی نمرات مطلق (WAASB)، ژنوتیپ‌های G7، G8 و G9 در چارک چهارم جای گرفته و دارای عملکرد بیشتر از متوسط عملکرد ژنوتیپ‌ها و پایداری بیشتری نسبت به ژنوتیپ‌های دیگر بودند. در نهایت برمبنای اهمیت یکسان برای عملکرد و پایداری، ژنوتیپ‌های G6، G7، G8 و G9 به‌عنوان ژنوتیپ‌های پایدار با عملکرد بالا معرفی شدند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

تجزیه AMMI

شاخص پایداری عملکرد

مدل مخلوط

موضوعات

• بِه‌نژادی و بیوتکنولوژی

---

عنوان مقاله English

Evaluation of the Compatibility and Stability of Pinto Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Genotypes using AMMI and REML/BLUP Methods

نویسندگان English

Behrouz Asadi ¹

Seyedeh Soudabeh Shobeiri ²

Ali Akbar Asadi ²

Foroud Salehi ³

Hossein Astaraki ⁴

¹ Crop and Horticultural Science Research Department, Arak Agriculture and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Arak, Iran

² Crop and Horticultural Science Research Department, Zanjan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Zanjan, Iran

³ Crop and Horticultural Science Research Department, Isfahan Agricultural and Natural Recourses Research and Education Center, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Isfahan, Iran

⁴ Crop and Horticultural Science Research Department, Lorestan Agriculture and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Lorestan, Iran

چکیده English

Introduction
In bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) breeding programs, the ultimate goal of researchers is to produce varieties with high yield potential to increase production in different environments. Due to the differences in the adaptability of genotypes in different environments, the yield of genotypes fluctuates in different environments, which is known as the genotype × environment interaction (GEI) and is the result of the different phenotypic responses of genotypes to environmental changes. It is of particular importance to understand the type and nature of the interaction and to obtain the figures that show the least reaction to the interaction. To account for GEI, breeders evaluate genotypes in multiple environments to identify genotypes with high yield and stability and genotypes that have a non-significant GEI are considered stable genotypes. There are various methods, such as parametric and nonparametric methods, to evaluate interaction effects but the best result is achieved when a genotype shows similar results of stability with different evaluation methods. Therefore, identifying and developing stable, high-yielding cultivars that perform consistently across diverse environmental conditions is a major objective of pinto bean breeding programs. To this end, the present study evaluated the yield stability of 13 pinto bean genotypes across multiple environments using multivariate stability analysis.

Materials and Methods
In order to compare the yield and study the compatibility of bean genotypes, 12 bean genotypes along with the Kosha cultivar (check) were studied in a randomized complete block design with three replications in four regions: Khomein, Boroujerd, Shahrekord, and Zanjan for 2 years. The F-test of sources of variation was performed based on the arithmetic Mean of squares expectation, assuming randomness of years and locations (environments) and fixed genotypes. To determine the stability and compatibility of genotypes, AMMI multivariate methods and BLUP-based linear mixed model were used, and WAASBi and WAASBYi stability quantities were calculated to quantify stability.

Results and Disussion
A combined analysis of variance was performed assuming randomness of years and locations (environments) and fixed genotypes and it showed that the interaction effects of genotype × location, year × location and genotype × year × location were significant. The main effect of genotype, the main effect of environment (sum of main effects and interaction effect), and the interaction effect of genotype × environment (sum of dual and triple effects) explained 15, 39, and 40 percent of the total sum of squares, respectively. AMMI analysis of variance showed that the first to seventh principal components were significant and together explained nearly 100% of the variation in the genotype × environment interaction. The first and second principal components explained nearly 76% of the sum of squares of the GEI. Genotypes G11, G9 and G6 had the lowest values ​​of the IPCA1, and among them, only genotype G9 had a yield higher than the average total yield, which was introduced as a stable genotype with high general adaptability to all environments. Genotypes G8, G6, and G11 had the lowest values ​​of the second principal component of IPCA2; therefore, considering the yield, genotype G6 can also be introduced as a stable genotype in all environments. AMMI2 biplot showed compatibility of genotype G12 with Shah1 and Zan2, genotypes G2, G3 and G4 with Boro1, genotypes G9 and G13 with Khom1 and Khom2 and genotypes G1 and G8 with Boro2 environments. Based on the simultaneous selection criterion based on average grain yield and WAASB stability index, genotypes G7, G9, G8, G6, G1 and G3 with the highest WAASBY value were stable genotypes with high grain yield. Based on the biplot of grain yield versus weighted average absolute scores (WAASB), genotypes G7, G8, and G9 located in the fourth quartile had higher yields than the average yield of genotypes and were more stable than other genotypes. Finally, based on equal importance for yield and stability, G11 and G4 are stable and low-yielding genotypes, G6, G7, G8 and G9 are stable and high-yielding genotypes, G1, G3 and G5 are unstable and high-yielding genotypes, and finally G10, G12, G13, G20 and G2 are unstable and high-yielding genotypes.

Conclusions
Because the WAASBY index incorporates mixed-model analysis and all relevant components of genotype performance, it appears to provide a more comprehensive assessment of genotype stability and adaptability than the other indices evaluated. Based on the WAASBY index, genotypes G9, G7, G8, and G6 were ranked first through fourth, respectively, and were identified as the most promising genotypes.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

AMMI Analysis

Mixture model

Yield stability index

Authors retain the copyright. This is an open access article distributed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0)

مراجع

Aghaee-Sarbarzeh, M., Dastfal, M., Farzadi, H., Andarzian, B., Shahbazpour-Shahbazi, A., Bahari, M., & Rostami, H. (2012). Evaluation of durum wheat genotypes for yield and yield stability in warm and dry areas of Iran. Seed and Plant Improvement Journal, 2, 315-325. (In Persian).

Ahmadi, K., Ebadzadeh, H. R., Hatami, F., Mohammadnia Afrozi, S., Esfandiaripour, E. & Abbastaghani, R. (2021). Agricultural Statistics for the Agricultural Year 1398-99. Volume 1: Crops. Ministry of Agricultural Jihad, Deputy for Planning and Economics, Information and Communication Technology Center.

Amini, A., Asadi, A. A., Chaichi, M., Ezt-Ahmadi, M., Ghasemi Kalkhoran, M., Eivazi, A. R., Hosseinibay, S. K., Salehi, P., Babaei, T., Godsi, M., & Mirfakhraee, N. (2023). Investigating the stability of promising bread wheat genotypes in cold climate using AMMI and GGE biplot analysis. Iranian Journal of Field Crop Science, 54(3), 119-134. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22059/ijfcs.2023.348569.654940

Amiri, S., Arminian, A., & Hosseinian Khoshrou, H. (2023). Evaluation of compatibility and stability of grain yield and evaluation of some agronomic characteristics of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes in rainfed conditions. Journal of Crop Breeding, 15(45), 219-233. https://doi.org/10.61186/jcb.15.45.219

Asadi, B., Shobeiri S. S., & Asadi, A. A. (2024). Analysis of the genotype × environment interaction effect for grain yield in red bean genotypes using AMMI and GGE biplot methods. Journal of Crop Breeding, 16(1), 86-102. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.61186/jcb.16.49.86

Bagheri, A. Mahmoudi, A. & Ghezeli, F. (2002). Common Beans: Research for Crop Improvement. Van Schoonhoven, A. & Voysest, O. (Eds.). Wallingford, UK: CAB International. (Persian translation by Academic Center for Education, Culture and Research (ACECR), Mashhad Branch, Iran).

Brandle, J. E., & Mcverty, P. B. E. (1994). Genotype × environment interaction and stability of seed yield of oil rapeseed corn-in Manitoba, Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 21, 233-240.  https://doi.org/10.4141/cjps88-049

Clevland, D. A. (2001). Is plant breeding science objective truth or social construction? The case of yield stability, Agriculture and Human Values, 18, 251-270. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011923222493

Danyali, S. F., Razavi, F., Ebadi Segherloo, A., Dehghani, H., & Sabaghpour, S. H. (2012). Yield stability in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) and study relationship among the univariate and multivariate stability parameters. Research in Plant Biology, 2(3), 46-61.

Dorri, H. R., Lak, M. R., & Assadi, B. (2014). Stability of bean (Phaseoulus vulgaris L.) genotypes in common bacterial blight condition using regression analysis, the additive main effects and multiplicative interactions (AMMI) and Muir methods, Iranian Journal of Pulses Research, 5(2), 119-130. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22067/ijpr.v1393i2.47083

Ebdon, J. S., & Guach, H. G. (2002). Additive main effect and multiplicative interaction analysis of national turf grass performance trails. II cultivar recommendations. Crop Science, 42, 489-496. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2002.4890

Elakhdar, A., Kumamaru, T., Smith, K. P., Brueggeman, R. S., Capo-chichi, L. J. A., & Solanki, S. (2017). Genotype by environment interactions (GEIs) for barley grain yield under salt stress condition. Journal of Crop Science and Biotechnology, 20(3), 193-204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12892-017-0016-0

Esmaeilzadeh Moghaddam, M., Tahmasebi, S., Ayeneh, G. A. L. A., Akbari Moghadam, H., Mahmoudi, K., Sayyahfar, M., Tabib Ghaffari, S. M., & Zali, H. (2018). Yield stability evaluation of bread wheat promising lines using multivariate methods. Cereal Research, 8(3), 333-344. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22124/c.2018.10654.1405

Esmailzadeh Moghaddam, M., Zakizadeh, M., Akbari Moghaddam, H., Abedini Esfahlani, M., Sayahfar, M., Nikzad, A. R., Tabib Ghafari, S. M., & Lotfali Ayeneh, G. A. (2011). Genotype × environment interaction and stability of grain yield of bread wheat genotypes in dry and warm areas of Iran. Seed and Plant Improvement Journal, 27(2), 257-273. (In Persian).

FAOSTAT, (2020). FAOSTAT. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. Available at https://www.fao.org/3/cc2211en/cc2211en.pdf.

Farshadfar, E. (1998). Application of Biometric Genetics in Plant Breeding. Taghe - Bostan Press, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran, 396 pp. (In Persian).

Gauch, H. G., & Zobel., R. W. (1996). AMMI analysis of yield trials. p. 85-122. In Kang M.S. & Gauch, H.G. (Eds.) Genotype by Environment Interaction, 1-14 pp. CRC Press. Boca Raton.

Gauch, H. G., & Zobel, R.W. (1997). Identifying mega-envitonments and targeting genotypes. Crop Science, 31, 311-326. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1997.0011183X003700020002x

Haider Shah, S., Munavar Shah, S., Inayat Khan, M., Ahmed, M., Hussain, I., & Eskridge, K. M. (2009). Non parametric methods in combined heteroscedastic experiments for assessing stability of wheat genotypes in Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Botany, 41, 711-730.

Hugh, G., & Gauch, G. H. (1988). Model selection and validation for yield trials with interaction. Biometrics, 44, 705-715. https://doi.org/10.2307/2531585

Jafari, T., & Farshadfar, E. (2018). Stability analysis of bread wheat genotypes (Triticum aestivum L.) by GGE biplot. Cereal Research, 8(2), 199-208. (In Persian). SID. https://sid.ir/paper/367197/en. https://doi.org/10.22124/c.2018.6232.1243

Kang, M. S., & Magari, R. (1995). Stable: A basic program for calculating stability and yield-stability statistics. Agronomy Journal, 87, 276-277. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1995.00021962008700020023x

Karimzadeh, R., Hosseinpour, T., Sharifi, P., Alt Jafarby, J., Shahbazi Homonlo, K., & Keshavarzi, K. (2020). Grain yield stability of durum wheat genotypes in semi-warm rainfed regions, Cereal Research, 10(2), 135-147. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22124/cr.2020.16274.1589

Kaya, Y., Akcura, M., & Taner, S. (2006). GGE-bi-plot analysis of multi environment yield trials in bread wheat. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 30, 325-337.

Kooshki, M., Ghaedrahmati, M., Assadi, B., Kamel, M., Khorshidi Benam, M., & Dorri, H. (2017). Analysis of yield stability of some white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) genotypes using AMMI method. Seed and Plant Journal, 32(4), 557-573. https://doi.org/10.22092/spij.2017.113089

Mekbib, F. (2004). Yield stability in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) genotypes. Biomedical and Sciences, 130, 147-153. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022878015943

Mohammadi, R., & Amri, A. (2013). Genotype × environment interaction and genetic improvement for yield and yield stability of rainfed durum wheat in Iran. Euphytica, 192(2), 227-249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-012-0839-1

Najafi Mirak, T., Agaee Sarbarzeh, M., Moayedi, A., Kaffashi, A., & Sayahfar, M. (2021). Yield stability analysis of durum wheat genotypes using AMMI method. Journal oF Agricultural Science and Sustainable Production, 31(2), 17-28. https://doi.org/10.22034/saps.2021.13087

Najafi Mirak, T., Moayedi, A. A., Sasani, S., & Ghandi, A. (2019). Evaluation of adaptation and grain yield stability of durum wheat (Triticum turgidum L.) genotypes in temperate agro-climate zone of Iran, Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences, 21, 127-138. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.29252/abj.21.2.127

Olivoto, T., Lúcio, A. D., da Silva, J. A., Marchioro, V. S., de Souza, V. Q., & Jost, E. (2019). Mean performance and stability in multi‐environment trials I: Combining features of AMMI and BLUP techniques. Agronomy Journal, 111(6), 2949-2960. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2019.03.0220

Olivoto, T., Lúcio, A. D., da Silva, J. A., Sari, B. G., & Diel, M. I. (2019). Mean performance and stability in multienvironment trials II: Selection based on multiple traits. Agronomy Journal, 111(6), 2961-2969.  https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2019.03.0221

Olivoto, T. (2019). Metan: multi environment trials analysis. R package version 1.1.0. https://github.com/TiagoOlivoto/metan (accessed 24 June 2019) https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.01.14.906750

Peterson, C. J., Moffatt, J. M., & Erickson, J. R. (1997). Yield stability of hybrid vs. pure line hard winter wheats in regional performance trials. Crop Science, 37, 116-120,  https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1997.0011183X003700010019x

Pezeshkpour, P., Amiri, R., & Jahangiri, A. (2025). Evaluation of performance stability of chickpea genotypes using AMMI, BLUP, MTSI and MGIDI Indexes. Journal of Agricultural Science and Sustainable Production, 35(2), 43-62. https://doi.org/10.22034/saps.2024.60435.3177

Pezeshkpour, P., Amiri, R., Karami, I., & Mirzaei, A. (2024). Evaluation of seed yield stability of lentil genotypes based on REML/BLUP and multi-trait stability index (MTSI). Journal of Crop Breeding, 16(2), 42-52. https://doi.org/10.61186/jcb.16.2.42

Pezeshkpour, P., & Karimizadeh, R. (2023). Evaluation of the mean performance and stability of chickpea genotypes by integration AMMI and BLUP models and selection based on Multi-Trait Stability Index (MTSI). Journal of Crop Breeding, 15(46), 73-83. (In Persian).

Philipo, M., Ndakidemi, P. A., & Mbega, E. R. (2021). Environmentally stable common bean genotypes for production in different agro-ecological zones of Tanzania. Heliyon, 7(21), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e05973

Rodriguez, M., Rau, D., & Papa, R. (2007). Genotype by environment interactions in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.): different responses of landraces, recombinant inbred lines and varieties to Mediterranean environment. Euphytica, 163(2), 231-247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-007-9635-8

Sellami, M. H., Pulvento, C., & Lavini, A. (2021). Selection of suitable genotypes of lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.) under rainfed conditions in south Italy using multi-trait stability index (MTSI). Agronomy, 11(9), 1807. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11091807

Semakula, G., & Dixon, A. (2007). Genotype × environment interaction, stability and agronomic performance of carotenoid -rich cassava clones. Scientific Research and Essays.

Sharifi, P., Sheikh, F., Miri, K., Sekhavat, R., & Asteraki, H. (2022). Evaluation of seed yield stability of faba bean genotypes by linear mixed-effects models (LMM). Iranian Journal of Field Crop Science, 53(2), 97-107. (in Persian).

Taherian, M., Bihamta, M. R., Peyghambari, S. A., Alizadeh, H., & Rasoulnia, A. (2019). Stability analysis and selection of salinity tolerant barley genotypes. Journal of Crop Breeding, 11(29), 93-103. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.29252/jcb.11.29.93

Valizadeh, M., & Moghadam, M. (2010). Experimental Designs in Agriculture. Fourth Edition. Privar Publishers, Iran. (in Persian).

Yan, W., & Tinker, N. A. (2006). Biplot analysis of multi-environment trial data: Principles and applications. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 86, 623-645. https://doi.org/10.4141/P05-169

Yan, W., & Kang, M. S. (2003). GGE biplot analysis: A graphical tool for breeders, Geneticists and Agronomists. CRC Press. Boca Raton. FL. USA. 271 p.

Yan, W., Hunt, L. A., Sheng, Q., & Szlavnics, Z. (2000). Cultivar evaluation and mega environment investigations based on the GGE- biplot. Crop Science, 40, 597-605. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2000.403597x

Zarei, L., Farshadfar, E., Haghparast, R., Rajabi, R., Mohammadi Sarab Badieh, M., & Zali, H. (2012). Comparison of different methods of stability evaluation in bread wheat genotypes under drought stress conditions. Electronic Journal of Crop Breeding, 5(3), 81-97. (In Persian)