Genotype by Environment Interaction and Yield Stability of Potato Cultivars under Tropical Conditions

Authors
R. S. 1
M. R. Verma 2
P. C. Satpathy 3
L. M. Yadav 4
R. Kumar 5
Z. Ullah 6
R. Khaiwal 7
R. K. Dubey 8
S. Kumar 9
D. Singh 10
M. R. Desmukh 11
D. Verma 1
P. M. Govindakrishnan 1
1 ICAR-Central Potato Research Institute, Shimla-171001, Himachal Pradesh, India.
2 Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, Bareilly- 243122, Uttar Pradesh, India.
3 Odisha University of Agriculture and Technology, Bhuvaneswar-571003, Odisha, India.
4 Rajendra Agricultural University, TCA campus, Dholi-848125, Bihar, India.
5 Central Potato research Station, Jalandhar-144003, Punjab, India.
6 Assam Agricutural University, Jorhat-758013, Assam, India.
7 Chandara Sekar Azad University of Agriculture. & Technology, Kanpur-208002, Uttar Pradesh, India.
8 Central Agricultural University, Imphal-791102, Manipur, India.
9 Central Potato Research Station, Patna-801506, Bihar, India.
10 GB Pant University of Agriculture. & Technology, Pant Nagar-249199, Uttarakhand, India.
11 National Agricultural Research Project, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeet, Pune-411007, Maharashtra, India.
Abstract
Potato (Solanum tuberosum ssp. tuberosum) cultivars grown under tropical conditions exhibit comparatively poor yields compared to the temperate conditions, hence, there is need for stable cultivars with greater yields. The interactions of four cultivars with ten environments for 2 years under All India Coordinated Research Project (Potato) across the country for 2 harvesting stage (75 and 90 DAP) revealed that the cultivars were significantly different among themselves for Total Yield (TY) and Marketable Yield (MY) harvested at 75 and 90 DAP at seven and eight environments, respectively. The pooled analysis showed a significant difference for cultivar and environmental main effects for all traits, indicating the existence of cultivars genetic variability justified from the heterogeneity of environments. The significant effect of G×E interaction for TY and MY at 90 DAP, and a non significance for the same traits at 75 DAP clearly indicated that the prevailing environments during early crop stage were uniform as compared to its later harvesting stage. Partitioning of G×E interaction into linear and non linear components were highly significant for all traits, strongly suggesting the real differences in cultivars for regression over environmental means and the response of cultivars to environment was controlled genetically. The cultivar K. Pukhraj was proven as early bulking and stable cultivar for TY and MY at 75 DAP and predictable in nature, as against K. Khyati which was stable cultivar for TY and MY at 90 DAP across growing environments. Hence, K. Khyati, which recorded the highest TY (27.45 t ha-1) and MY (25.24 t ha-1) for harvesting at 75 DAP, and TY (31.28 t ha-1) and MY (28.19 t ha-1) at 90 DAP, can be recommended for tropical conditions.

Keywords

Subjects

1. Abd El-Moula, M. A. 2011. Yield Stability and Genotype-Environment Interaction of some Promising Yellow Maize Hybrids. Egyptian J. Plant Breed., 15(4): 63-74.
2. Abo-Hegazy, S. R. E., Selim, T. and Ashrie, A. A. M. 2013. Genotype×Environment Interaction and Stability Analysis for Yield and its Components in Lentil. J. Plant Breed. Crop Sci., 5(5): 85-90.
3. Allard, R. W. and Bradshaw, A. D. 1964. Implications of Genotype-Environment Interactions in Applied Plant Breeding. Crop Sci., 4: 503-508.
4. Baker, R. J. 1988. Test for Crossover Genotype-Environmental Interaction. Can. J. Plant Sci., 68: 405-410.
5. Becker, H. C. and Leon, J. 1988. Stability Analysis in Plant Breeding. Plant Breed., 101: 1-23.
6. Beukema, H. P. and van der Waag, D. E. 1990. Introduction to Potato Production. Pudoc, Wageningen, The Netherlands, PP. 23-24.
7. Bombik, A., Rymuza, K., Markowska, M. and Stankiewicz, C. 2007. Variability Analysis of Selected Quantitative Characteristics in Edible Potato Varieties. Acta Scientiarum Polonorum- ser. Agricultura, 6: 5-15.
8. Bradshaw, J. E. 2006. Genetics of Agrihorticultural Traits. In: “Handbook of Potato Production, Improvement and Postharvest Management”, (Eds.): Gopal, J. and Khurana, S. M. P. Food Products Press, Binghampton, PP. 41-75.
9. Bradshaw, J. E. 2009. A Genetic Perspective on Yield Plateau in Potato. Potato J., 36 (3-4): 79-94.
10. Burton, W. G. 1981. Challenges for Stress Physiology in Potato. Amer. Potato J., 58: 3-14.
11. Dessalegn, F., Mengistu, F. and Abebe, T. 2008. Performance Stability Analysis of Potato Varieties under Rainfed and Irrigated Potato Production Systems in North-Western Ethiopia. Ethiopian J. Sci. Technol., 5(2): 90-98.
12. Eberhart, S. and Russell, W. A. 1966. Stability Parameters for Comparing Varieties. Crop Sci., 6: 36-40.
13. FAO. 2014. Statistical Databases FAOSTAT. http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/default. aspx#ancor.
14. Flis, B., Domański, L., Zimnoch-Guzowska, E., Polgar, Z., Pousa, S. Á. and Pawla A. 2014. Stability Analysis of aAgronomic Traits in Potato Cultivars of Different Origin. Amer. J. Potato Res., 91: 404-41.
15. Hancock, R. D., Morris, W. L., Ducreux, L. J. M., Morris, J. A., Usman, M. Verrall, S. R. and Taylor, M. A. 2013. Physiological, Biochemical and Molecular Responses of the Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) Plant to Moderately Elevated Temperature. Plant Cell Environ., 37(2): 439-450.
16. Haydar, A., Islam, M. A., Ara, T., Khokan, E. H. and Hossain, M. M. 2009. Stability Analysis for Tuber Yield Components in Potato. Int. J. Sustain. Crop Prod., 4(4): 1-4.
17. Haynes, K. G., Haynes, F. L. and Henderson, W. R. 1989. Heritability of Specific Gravity of Diploid Potato under High-Temperature Growing Conditions. Crop Sci., 29: 622-62.
18. Ierna, A. 2009. Tuber Yield and Quality Characteristics of Potatoes for Off-Season Crops in a Mediterranean Environment. J. Sci. Food Agric., 90(1): 85-90.
19. Koemel, J. E., Jr., Guenzi, A. C., Carver, B. F., Payton, M. E., Morgan, G. H. and Smith, E. L. 2004. Hybrids and Pure Line Hard Winter Wheat Yield and Stability. Crop Sci., 44:107-113.
20. Miheretu, F. 2014. Genotype and Environment Interaction and Marketable Tuber Yield Stability of Potato (Solanum tuberosum L) Genotypes Grown in Bale Highlands, Southeastern Ethiopia. Adv. Crop Sci. Tech., 2(1): 1-4.
21. Rymuza, K. and Bombik A. 2010. Genotype-Environment Interaction in Evaluating Yielding of Selected Edible Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) Cultivars. Plant Breed. Seed Sci., 62: 97-106.
22. Rymuza, K., Lenartowicz, T., Radzka, E. and Bombik, A. 2015. Evaluation of Yield Response of Second Early Edible Potato Cultivars to Spatial Environmental Conditions. Commun. Biometry Crop Sci., 10(1): 27-40.
23. Saxena, M. 2014. Indian Horticulture Database-2014. NHB, MOA, GOI, www.nhb.gov.in (Accessed on 20.5.15)
24. Scott, G. J. and Suarez, V. 2012. The Raise of Asia as the Centre of Global Potato Production and Some Implications for Industry. Potato J., 39(1): 1-22.
25. Sheoran, O. P., Tonk, D. S., Kaushik, L. S., Hasija, R. C. and Pannu, R. S. 1998. Statistical Software Package for Agricultural Research Workers. Recent Advances in Information Theory, Statistics and Computer Applications by Hooda, D. S. and Hasija, R. C., Department of Mathematics Statistics, CCS HAU, Hisar, PP. 139-143.
26. Sogut, T. and Ozturk, F. 2011. Effects of Harvesting Time on Some Yield and Quality Traits of Different Maturing Potato Cultivars. Afr. J. Biotech., 10(38): 7349-7355.
27. Staff. 2015. Future Challenges and Opportunities for the Potato in Global Context. http://spudsmart.com/future-challenges-and-opportunities-for-the-potato-in-a-global-context/
28. Suzuki, D., Griffiths, A. and Lewontin, R. 1981. An Introduction to Genetic Analysis. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, USA.
29. Thornton, M. K., Malik, N. J. and Dwellee, R. B.1996. Relationship between Leaf Gas Exchange Characteristics and Productivity of Potato Clones Grown at Different Temperatures. Amer. Potato J., 73(2): 63-77.
30. Van Dam, J., Kooman, P. L. and Struik, P. C. 1996. Effects of Temperature and Photoperiod on Early Growth and Final Number of Tubers in Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) Potato Res., 39: 51-62.
Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology
Volume 20, Issue 3
May and June 2018
Pages 583-595