Evaluation of Genotype × Environment Interaction of Grapevine Genotypes (Vitis vinifera L.) By Non Parametric Method

Authors
V. Rasoli 1
E. Farshadfar 1
J. Ahmadi 2
1 Department of Plant Breeding, College of Agriculture, Razi University of Kermanshah, Kermanshah, Islamic Republic of Iran.
2 Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Islamic Republic of Iran.
Abstract
To evaluate genotype × environment interaction (GEI) of grapevine, 20 genotypes of grapevines with Russian origin were evaluated at one location in Urmia and four locations in Takestan (two locations under full irrigation and two locations under drought stress). This research was performed in a randomized complete block design with three replications and three vines in each plot, in 2012-2013 season. Data on fruit yield (kg/vine) of the grapevine genotypes grown at different test locations were recorded and subjected to stability analysis by nonparametric methods. Result of the combined ANOVA revealed that variances due to genotypes, environments, and genotype-environment interactions were highly significant. Significant genotypic variance indicated genetic diversity among genotypes yield. The highest Si(1) and Si(2) mean absolute rank was observed for genotypes Ramfi TCXA, Apozoski Ramfi, X45 and Anapiski Ramfli, indicating the high instability of these genotypes. Among the individual Z values, it was found that genotypes Ramfi TCXA, Uzbakestan Moscat, Bli Ramfi, Apozoski Ramfi and Anapiski Ramfli were significantly stable relative to the others, of which the Zi(1) and Zi(2) values were greater than the table χ2(0.05, 1)(3.84). The genotypes Skieve and Gezgiski Ramfi ranked the first and second, respectively, according to Si(3), while, according to Si(6), genotypes Skieve and Uzbakestan Moscat ranked the first and second, respectively. Genotypes Uzbakestan Moscat, Bli Ramfi and Kishmish Ramfi Azos, respectively, had the highest stability and lowest changes in different environments and were recommendable as stable genotypes in different areas. But, it should be noted that yield of these genotypes was moderate. Genotype Muscat had a high yield and moderate stability. As a result, these genotypes (Uzbakestan Moscat, Bli Ramfi, Skieve, Muscat and Kishmish Ramfi Azos) indicated greater resistance to environmental fluctuation and, therefore, increasing specificity of adaptability to low yielding environments.

Keywords

1. Aremu, C. O., Ariyo, O. J. and Adewale, B. D. 2007. Assessment of Selection Techniques in Genotype×Environment Interaction in Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp). Afr. J. Agric. Res., 2: 352-355.
2. Cooley, N. 2012. Environment×Genotype Interactions and the Physiological Processes Determining Fruitfulness and Yield in Grapevines: Final Report to Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation. Project Number MU 08/02, University of Melbourne.
3. Eberhart, S. A. and Russell, W. A. 1966. Stability Parameters for Comparing Varieties. Crop Sci., 6: 36-40.
4. Farshadfar, E., Safari, H. and Yaghotipoor, A. 2012. Chromosomal Localization of QTLs Controlling Genotype×Environment Interaction in Wheat Substitution Lines Using Nonparametric Methods. J. Agr. Sci., 4: 12-24.
5. Farshadfar, E. 2010. New Discussions in Biometrical Genetics. Kermanshah Islamic Azad University Press, II: 1174- 1219.
6. Finlay, K. W. and Wilkinson, G. N. 1963. The Analysis of Adaptation in a Plant Breeding Programme. Aust. J. Agric. Res., 14: 742-754.
7. Gauch, H. G. and Zobel, R. W. 1996. AMMI Analysis of Yield Trials. In: “Genotype-by Environment Interaction”, (Eds.): Kang, M. S. and Gauch, H. G.. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, PP. 85–122.
8. Huehn, M. 1979. Beitrage zur Erfassung der Phanotypischen Stabilitat. I. Vorschlag Einiger auf Ranginformationen Beruhenden Stabilitatsiarameter. EDO Med. Bio., 10: 112-117.
9. Huehn, M. 1990. Non-parametric Measures of Phenotypic Stability. II. Application. Euphytica, 47: 195-201.
10. Koundouras, S., Tsialtas, I., Zioziou, E. and Nikolaou, N. 2008. Rootstock Effects on the Adaptive Strategies of Grapevine (Vitis vinifera L. cv. Cabernet Sauvignon) under Contrasting Water Status: Leaf Physiological and Structural Responses. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 128: 86-96.
11. Mohammadi, R., Abdulahi, A., Haghparast, R., Aghaee, M. and Rostaee, M. 2007. Nonparametric Methods for Evaluating of Winter Wheat Genotypes in Multi-environment Trials. W. Jour. Agri. Sci., 3: 137-242.
12. Nassar, R. and Huehn, M. 1987. Studies on Estimation of Phenotypic Stability: Tests of Significance for Non-parametric Measures of Phenotypic Stability. Biometric., 43: 45-53.
13. Parmar, D. J., Patel, J. S., Mehta, A. M., Makwana, M. G. and Patel, S. R. 2012. Non - Parametric Methods for Interpreting Genotype×Environment Interaction of Rice Genotypes (Oryza sativa L.). J. Ric. Res., 5: 33-39.
14. Sabaghnia, N., Karimizadeh, R. and Mohammadi, M. 2012. The Use of Corrected and Uncorrected Nonparametric Stability Measurements in Durum Wheat Multi-environmental Trials. Span. J. Agric. Res., 10: 722-730.
15. Sabaghnia, N., Dehghani, H. and Sabaghpour, S. H. 2006. Non-parametric Methods for Interpreting Genotype×Environment Interaction of Lentil Genotypes. Crop Sci., 46: 1100-1106.
16. Serra, I., Strever, A., Myburgh, P. and Deloire, A. 2013. Review: The Interaction between Rootstocks and Cultivars (Vitis vinifera L.) to Enhance Drought Tolerance in Grapevine. Austr. J. Grape Wine Res., 10: 111-120.
17. Sivčev, B., Petrović, N., Ranković-Vasić, Z., Radovanović, D., Vuković, A. and Vujadinović, M. 2011. Effect of the Genotype-environmental Interaction on Phenotype Variation of the Bunch Weight in White Wine Varieties. Arch. Biol. Sci., Belgrade, 63 : 365-370.
18. Yates, F. and Cochran, W. G. 1938. The Analysis of Groups of Experiments. J. Agr. Sci., 28: 556-58.
Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology
Volume 17, Issue 5
September and October 2015
Pages 1279-1289