Analysis of the Genotype by Environment Interactions of Sugar Beet Genotypes under Rhizomania Contamination

Document Type : Original Research

Authors
P. Fasahat 1
J. Rezaei 2
M. Sharifi 3
H. Azizi 4
K. Fotuhi 4
P. Mahdikhani 5
A. Pedram 5
A. Jalilian 6
B. Babaei 1
1 Sugar Beet Seed Institute (SBSI), Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Islamic Republic of Iran.
2 Agricultural and Natural Resources Research Center of Khorasan Razavi, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Islamic Republic of Iran.
3 Agricultural and Natural Resources Research Center of Fars, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Islamic Republic of Iran.
4 Agricultural and Natural Resources Research Center of West Azerbaijan, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Islamic Republic of Iran.
5 Agricultural and Natural Resources Research Center of West Azerbaijan, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Iran
6 Agricultural and Natural Resources Research Center of Kermanshah, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Islamic Republic of Iran.
10.22034/JAST.26.4.805
Abstract
The sugar beet crop has always been attacked by various pests and diseases. Rhizomania viral disease, which has spread in different regions of sugar beet cultivation, has become a disease of prime importance for the crop in the last three decades. Resistant cultivar usage is the only reliable way to manage rhizomania disease. In order to identify promising genotypes, eleven sugar beet genotypes with natural infection to rhizomania, in a company with three controls, were assessed in a Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with four replications. The experiment was conducted in six research stations of Karaj, Khoy, Kermanshah, Mashhad, Miandoab, and Shiraz for two cropping seasons (2020 and 2021). Based on the rhizomania score, all genotypes had acceptable resistance to the disease. The Additive Main Effects and Multiplicative Interaction (AMMI) stability analysis illustrated that the first five principal components were significant and specified 88.8% of the total genotype by environment interaction variance. Gen-7, Gen-10, Gen-11, and Gen-2 were selected as stable genotypes based on the AMMI model. Genotype plus Genotype by Environment Interaction (GGE) biplot results also confirmed the superiority of Gen-10 and Gen-11 regarding sugar yield and stability in disease-infected environments. According to the results of the Multi-Trait Stability Index (MTSI), genotypes Gen-4, Gen-1, Gen-2, and Gen-11 were identified as stable genotypes under rhizomania-infected conditions. By applying different stability measurement methods, in addition to identifying the genotypes’ adaptation to different environments, accurate decisions for future breeding or cultivar registration can be achieved.

Keywords

Subjects

1. Ajay, B., Aravind, J. and Abdul Fiyaz, R. 2018. Ammistability: additive main effects and multiplicative interaction model stability parameters. R Package Version 11.
2. Anuradha, N., Patro, T. S. S. K., Singamsetti, A., Sandhya Rani, Y., Triveni, U., Nirmala Kumari, A., Govanakoppa, N., Lakshmi Pathy T. and Tonapi, V.A. 2022. Comparative study of AMMI-and BLUP-based simultaneous selection for grain yield and stability of finger millet [Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn.] genotypes. Front. Plant Sci., 12: 786839.
3. Bartlett, M. S. 1937. Properties of sufficiency and statistical tests. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A-Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 160(901): 268-282.
4. Biancardi, E. and Tamada, T. 2016. Rhizomania. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
5. Cook, D. and Scott, R. 1993. The sugar beet crop: science into practice. New York, USA: Champan and Hall Press.
6. Eberhart, S. T. and Russell, W. A. 1966. Stability parameters for comparing varieties 1. Crop Sci., 6(1): 36-40.
7. Ebdon, J. S. and Gauch, H. G. 2002. Additive main effect and multiplicative interaction analysis of national turfgrass performance trials. Crop Sci., 42(2): 497-506.
8. Fasahat, P. and Kakueinezhad, M. 2021. Evaluation of sugar market in terms of price fluctuations and its global consequences. Journal of Sugar Beet, 37(1): 131-138.
9. Fasahat, P., Rajabi, A., Mahmoudi, S.B., Noghabi, M.A. and Rad, J.M. 2015. An overview on the use of stability parameters in plant breeding. Biometrics & Biostatistics International Journal, 2(5): 00043.
10. Fasahat, P., Muhammad, K., Abdullah, A., Rahman, B. M. A., Siing, N. M., Gauch, J. H. G. and Ratnam, W. 2014. Genotype× environment assessment for grain quality traits in rice. Communications in Biometry and Crop Science, 9(2): 71-82.
11. Finlay, K. W. and Wilkinson, G. N. 1963. The analysis of adaptation in a plant-breeding programme. Aust. J. Agric. Res., 14(6): 742-754.
12. Hassani, M., Heidari, B., Dadkhodaie, A. and Stevanato, P. 2018. Genotype by environment interaction components underlying variations in root, sugar and white sugar yield in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Euphytica. 214: 79.
13. Hoffmann, C. M., Koch, H. J. and Marlander, B. 2021. Sugar beet. In: Crop physiology case histories for major crops. 634-672, Academic Press.
14. ICUMSA. 2009. International commission for uniform methods of sugar analysis. Methods Book. Bartens, Berlin.
15. ISO. 2022. The Sugar Market, https://www.isosugar.org/sugarsector/sugar (Accessed January 28, 2023)
16. Jurgen, B. 2019. Sugar Economy Europe Zuckerwirtschaft Europa Economie Sucrière Europe 2019. 65. Auflage, revidierte Ausgabe. Berlin: Bartens, A.
17. Khan, M. M. H., Rafii, M. Y., Ramlee, S. I., Jusoh, M. and Al Mamun, M. 2021. AMMI and GGE biplot analysis for yield performance and stability assessment of selected Bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea L. Verdc.) genotypes under the multi-environmental trials (METs). Sci. Rep., 11(1): 1-17.
18. Luterbacher, M., Asher, M., Beyer, W., Mandolino, G., Scholten, O., Frese, L. and Slyvchenko, O. 2005. Sources of resistance to diseases of sugar beet in related Beta germplasm: II. Soil-borne diseases. Euphytica, 141(1): 49-63.
19. Norouzi, P., Stevanato, P., Mahmoudi, S. B., Fasahat, P. and Biancardi, E. 2017. Molecular progress in sugar beet breeding for resistance to biotic stresses in sub-arid conditions-current status and perspectives. J. Crop Sci. Biotech., 20(2): 99-105.
20. Oladosu, Y., Rafii, M. Y., Abdullah, N., Magaji, U., Miah, G., Hussin, G. and Ramli, A. 2017. Genotype× Environment interaction and stability analyses of yield and yield components of established and mutant rice genotypes tested in multiple locations in Malaysia. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B—Soil & Plant Science, 67(7): 590-606.
21. Olivoto, T., Lúcio, A.D., da Silva, J.A., Sari, B.G. and Diel, M.I. 2019. Mean performance and stability in multi‐environment trials II: Selection based on multiple traits. Agron. J., 111(6): 2961-2969.
22. Purchase, J. L. 1997. Parametric analysis to describe G × E interaction and yield stability in winter wheat. Ph.D. thesis. Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, University of the Orange Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.
23. Purchase, J. L., Hatting, H. and van Deventer, C. S. 2000. Genotype × environment interaction of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in South Africa: II. Stability analysis of yield performance. S. Afr. J. Plant Soil, 17: 101-107.
24. Raju, B. 2002. A study on AMMI model and its biplots. Indian Society of Agricultural Statistics (India) 55: 297-322.
25. Rao, A. and Prabhakaran, V. 2005. Use ofAMMI in Simultaneous Selection of Genotypes for Yield and Stability. J. Indian Soc. Agric. Stat., 59: 76-82.
26. Reinfeld, E., Emmerich, A., Baumgarten, G., Winner, C. and Beiss, U. 1974. Zur Voraussage des Melassez zuckersaus Ruben analysen Zucker. London, UK.: Chapman & Hall, World Crop Series.
27. Sneller, C., Kilgore‐Norquest, L. and Dombek, D. 1997. Repeatability of yield stability statistics in soybean. Crop Sci., 37: 383-390.
28. Statista. 2022. https://www.statista.com/statistics/249679/total-production-of-sugar-worldwide/ (Accessed on January 28, 2023)
29. Yadav, C.B., Gangashetty, P.I., Beckmann, M., Mur, L.A. and Yadav, R.S. 2022. Genotype-by-Environment Interaction Analysis of Metabolites in Pearl Millet Genotypes with High Concentrations of Slowly Digestible and Resistant Starch in Their Grains. Cells, 11(19): 3109.
30. Yan, W. 1999. A study on the methodology of cultivar evaluation based on yield trial data with special reference to winter wheat in Ontario. Ph.D. thesis, University of Guelph, Canada.
31. Yan, W. 2001. GGEbiplot- a windows application for graphical analysis of multienvironment trial data and other types of two-way data. Agron J., 93: 1111.
32. Yan, W. and Kang, M. S. 2003. GGE biplot analysis: A graphical tool for breeders, geneticists, and agronomists. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
33. Zali, H., Farshadfar, E., Sabaghpour, S. H. and Karimizadeh, R. 2012. Evaluation of genotype× environment interaction in chickpea using measures of stability from AMMI model. Ann. Biol. Res., 3: 3126-3136.
34. Zhang, Z., Cheng, L. and Zhonghuai, X. 1998. Analysis of variety stability based on AMMI model. Zuo wu xue bao, 24: 304-309.
Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology
Volume 26, Issue 4
July and August 2024
Pages 805-817