Identification of peach accessions stability and adaptability innon-balanced trials through years

MAULION, E; ARROYOS, L; DAORDEN, M E; VALENTINI, G; CERVIGNI, GDL

SCIENTIA HORTICULTURAE

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV

Lugar: Amsterdam; Año: 2016 p. 198 - 208

0304-4238

Identification of genotypes with acceptable yield and yield stability in different environments is animportant issue in plant breeding. Genotype-by-environment interaction (GEI) can alter genotypes per-formances making the selection of superior material a tedious task for breeders. Consequently, it isnecessary to assess the usefulness of different available methods and identify the most suitable for under-standing GEI. The objectives of this work were to compare three methods to study genotype stabilityconsidering incomplete data sets: (i) Di Rienzo, Guzmán and Casanoves? test (DGC), (ii) relative yield (RY)and (iii) Piepho?s method. In addition, AMMI (additive main effect and multiplicative interaction) analysisand eight AMMI stability measures SIPC, EV, ASV, Da, FP, B, FA and Za were computed to explore theiradvantages and disadvantages to select stable entries. The usefulness of the genotype selection index(GSI) and the rank-sum (RS) procedures to identify stable and high-yielding genotypes were evaluatedand then compared with the superiority (P) and reliability indexes (I).The association between yield vari-ation and climatic factors as frosts, chilling, heat, rainfall and the interactions among them were alsoanalyzed. 29 peach entries were assessed in four to seven seasons in a completely randomized designwith three replications. DGC and RY tests agreed on classifying Fireprince as a stable and high-yieldingpeach, RY classified 25 entries as stable, while Piepho?s method did not separate the tested genotypes asDGC and RY did. The results of AMMI indicated that 25.06% of total variability was justified by genotypes,9.76% by environments and 58.97% by GEI. The first five interaction principal components could explain94.82% of GEI and showed the efficiency of AMMI model to study and understand GEI. The AMMI param-eters showed no association with fruit yield, therefore, they could be useful to indicate stable entriesbut they would not be appropriate to select stable and high-yielding genotypes. The EV and Za indicatedstatic stability while ASV, SIPC, Da, FA and FP pointed out the dynamic stability concept. The performanceof the best entries selected by GSI, RS, P and I procedures were not different, therefore, any of them can beused to select superior peach genotypes. Rainfall during endodormancy, rainfall from floral bud endo- toecodormancy - and heat accumulation during fruit development period showed significant correlationwith yield variation across seasons