Abstract

To determine the yield stability and effects of environment on wheat grain

yield through AMMI model, eight spring wheat varieties were evaluated
under eight different sowing dates during rabi season over three consecutive
years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09, respectively, at Regional Agricultural
Research Station, Ishurdi, Pabna using a split plot design with three
replications. The AMMI analysis of variance showed highly significant
(P<O.OI) differences for the main and interaction effect for the trait studied.
indicating differential response of genotypes across testing environments.
The AMMI model supplied an adequate fit to the data as first Interaction Principal
Component Axis was significant (P<O.OI). The first two bilinear terms
accounted for 80.31% of the G x E sum of squares. The study revealed that
29-Nov. is the most optimum time for the cultivation of spring wheat in the
tested region but it can be cultivated from 15-Nov. to 6-dec. with good
average yield. The biplot shows that Prodip is considered the best variety in
terms of adaptation to all environments with high mean yield as it exhibited
almost negligible interaction with environments and therefore could be
recommended for the general cultivation in the tested region. Although Sufi
was moderately sensitive to environments. it gave vary low yield among all
varieties. BAW1064 was regarded as sensitive to environmental changes
with the highest mean yield and might be recommended for cultivation under
the favorable environments. Rest of the varieties showed sensitivity to
environments with below mean yield and therefore could be recommended
for late sowing.
Keywords: AMMI, G x E, Biplot, Wheat, Yield

Introduction
Wheat ranks second among major cereals next to rice and ensure a vital role in
food security of teeming hungry millions of Bangladesh. Bangladesh is a sub-
tropical country where 80% of the total wheat is grown after rice under short and
dry winter between November to March (Khan, 2010). The optimum wheat sowing
time is from is" November to 30th November. However, wheat sowing is often
delayed, under rice and wheat cropping system due to late harvest of T-aman rice.
These delayed wheat sowing even after 25th December. Researchers showed that
the main constraint to yield in Bangladesh is late seeding. Therefore, planting time
is one of the important factors influencing wheat production in Bangladesh.
Breeders have recently emphasized on stable yield under different climatic
conditions which is one of the focal endeavors of wheat breeding. They have to
screen out genotypes planted at dif­ ferent interval to enable selection of those
varieties, which are suitable for wider range of planting. An ideal variety should
have a high mean yield combined with a low degree of fluctuation, when grown
under diverse environments (Ashraf et al., 2001; Tarakanovas and Ruzgas, 2006).
Genotype-Environment interaction (GEl) in spring wheat varieties is the
differential response of genotypes to changing environmental conditions. Several
statistical methods have been proposed for analysis of stability with the aim of
explaining the information contained in the G-E interaction data matrix. Gauch
(1988 and 1992) has advocated the use of AMMI (Additive Main effects and
Multiplica­ tive Interaction) analysis for yield trials. AMMI analysis extracts
genotype and environment by main effects and uses Principal Component Axes
(PCAs) to explain patterns in the G-E interaction or residual matrix (Romagosa and
Fox, 1993). The model computes the Principal Component scores for genotypes
and environments that represent the G-E interaction. According to the AMMI model,
genotypes which are characterized by mean greater than the grand mean and
the interaction principal component axes (lPCA) scores nearly zero are considered
as generally adaptable to all the environments. However, genotypes with high
mean performance and large value of IPC A scores are considered as the existence
of specific adaptability to the environments. A genotype showing high positive
interaction in an environment obviously has the ability to exploit the agro-ecological
conditions of the specific environment and is therefore the best suitable to the proper
environment. AMMI analysis permits estimation of interac­ tion effect of a genotype
in each environment and it helps to identify the best genotypes suited for specific
environmental conditions (Gauch and Zobel, 1997).
Therefore, the goal of this study was I) to evaluate the G x E interaction using AMMI
for the yield of spring wheat genotypes, II) to observe genotypic stability with respect
to grain yield in different sowing time and III) to identify the most suited environment
sowing time adapted to genotypes.
Materials and Methods
Eight wheat genotypes including six released varieties (Sourav, Gourab. Shatabdi,
Sufi, Bijoy and Prodip) and two pre-release varieties ( BAWI059 and BAW1064) were
evaluated at eight different dates of sowing ( 8-Nov., IS-Nov., 22-Nov., 29-Nov., 6-
Dec .. l3-Dec., 20-Dec. and 27-Dec.) for three succes­ sive years, 2006-07, 2007-
08 and 2008-09 during the rabi season. The experiment was conducted at
Regional Agricultural Research Station, Bangladesh Agricultural Research
Institute, Ishurdi, Pabna. The Agro Ecological Zone (AEZ) of the area is High
Ganges River Flood Plain (AEZ-Il). The soil type is Gangetic Calcareous Alluvium
Soil with pH 6.1 to 7.5. The organic matter content of the soil is very low (1.21%).
Average weekly maximum and minimum temperature of wheat growing seasons
of 2006-07,2007-08 and 2008-09 were presented in Fig. 1.
The experimental design was a split plot based on RCBD with three replications.
Times of sowing are assigned in the main plot and wheat varieties are in the split
plot. The unit plot size was 1.6x4 m with 20 ern row spacing. The seed rate was
used 120 kg/ha and fertilizer doses were 100-27-40-20-1 kg N-P-K-S-B/ha,
respectively and was applied as per recommendation. The seeds were treated
with Provax-200 WP (Carboxin 37.5% + Thiram 37.5%). Agronomic and cultural
practices were adopted as and when required. At harvest, grain yield was recorded
as kg plot-1 and extrapolated in ton per hectare(t/ha).
Fig. l. Average weekly maximum and minimurr temperature ( C) of Wheat growing
seasons of 2006-07. 2007-08 and 2008-09

Yield data of 8 spring wheat varieties were subjected to the analysis of variance
(ANOVA) using the MSTAT-C package (Original version, 1993 developed by the
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University). The means
were separated using Fisher's protected Least Significance Dif­ ference test (LSD)
at P = 0.05. To determine the effects of G x E interaction on yields, additive main
effects and multiplicative interaction (AMMl) analysis (Zobel et al., 1988; Gauch,
1992) was processed using Crop Stat Version 7.2 computer package and the biplot
was drown by placing both genotype and environment means on the x-axis and
the respective IPCAI scores on the y-axis (Zobel, 1990), respectively. AMMI
stability value (ASY) was calculated by using the formula proposed by Purchase
(1997). The year component of the environment variables was eliminated by
averaging over years and the G x E interaction was analyzed in AMMI model with
a view to identify spring wheat genotypes better adapted to different planting time
(Misra et al .. 2009).

Results and Discussion

All the eight spring wheat varieties showed significant differences in grain yield
in all the eight environmental conditions in all the three years (Table 1). The
average yield of 8 spring wheat varieties across the sowing dates of three years
varied from 4.65 to 5.93 t/ha.
Table 1.
The results emphasized that grain yield of the varieties increased from 8-Nov.
sowing to 29-Nov. sowing and then decreased. The decrease in yield due to delayed
seeding was gradual. Due to its optimum sowing dates, it would realize optimum
season length and achieve high grain yield as a result of suitable weather
conditions prevailing through different growth stage. On the other hand, beyond 29-
Nov. sowing (i.e., 6-Dec. and onward sowing) was subjected to often hotter growing
seasons resulting in low yields. Ranking of the wheat varieties for yield in the
different environments showed wide differences indicating interaction of genotypes
with the environ ments.
The AMMI analysis of variance of grain yield data of the 8 spring wheat varieties
under 8 environmental conditions indicated that all three components genotypes
(G), environments (E) and the G x E interaction were significantly different (P<O.Ol).
The AMMI model supplied an adequate fit to the data as the first IPCA was
significant (P<O.OI). Partitioning of the variance components indicated that
52.27% was due to environments, 22.27% due to genotypes and 25.45% due to G
x E interaction of the total variation (Table 2). Hence, the environmental effect
was responsible for the greatest part of the variation; followed by G x E interaction
effects indicated that the proportion of environment and G x E interaction variation
for grain yield was much larger than that due to genotypes main effects.
Table 2. AMMI ANOYA of spring wheat varieties for grain yield (t.ha) in the
eight environmental conditions
It also implied that yield was affected by both the environment and G x E interaction
effects. These results concurred with the findings of several authors (Ntawuruhunga
et al., 2001; Boshim et al., 2003; Tarakanovas and Ruzgas, 2006; Naveed et al.,
2007; Misra et al., 2009; Hagos and Abay, 2013). Many G x E interaction studies
(Dixon and Nukenine,1997: Gauch and Zobel, 1996; Naveed et al.. 2007) shown that
the proportion of sun of squares due to difference among environments ranged
from 40-90% and G x E was usually larger than genotypes main effects. The sum
of squares for genotypes, environments and IPCA I provided at the value of 90.88%
of total sum of squares indicating that AMMI model effec­ tively partitioned the total
sum of squares.
The G x E interaction was partitioned into IPCA I, IPCA II, IPCA III and IPCA IV, of
which only IPCA I was significant (P< 0.01) and accounted for 64.21% of the total
G x E interaction sum of squares with 13 degrees of freedom (Table 2). However,
the second third and fourth IPCAs captured in non-sig­ nificant portion of the
variability. Abraha (2003) and Hagos and Abay (20l3) also confirmed a signifi­ cant
effect only for the first IPCA score on their genotype by the environment interaction
of bread wheat genotypes. According to Crossa et al. (1990), A MM I with two, three
or four IPCA axes is the best pre­ dictive model. However, IPCA II accounted for
16.10%, IPCA III 11.01% and IPCA IV 5.62% of the G x E interaction sum of
squares, respectively. The first two bilinear terms accounted for 80.31% of the G x
E sum of squares and used 24 of the total 49 degrees of freedom available in the
interaction. Zobel et al. (1988) stated that the first two interaction principal
component axis explains the best interaction sumof squares. These results
indicated that the AMMI model fits well the data and justifies the use of AMMI.
Misra et al. (2009) reported significant only first bilinear interaction term of the AMMI
analysis of the G x E interaction.
The G x E interaction effects of the varieties in the eight environmental conditions
(Table 3) showed differential performance of genotypes under different planting
conditions. The large differences of effects for both genotypes and environments
were observed. The environments 29-Nov. (0.595 t/ha) and
22-Nov. (0.478 t/ha) have the main highly significant positive grain yield effects
whereas 27-Dec. (-0.69 t/ha) and 20-Dec. (-0.553 t/ha) showed the main negative
grain yield effects. Only the variety BAW-I064 had a positive highly significant grain
yield effect (0.622 t/ha) across all environments. The variety Pro­ dip had also positive
yield effect (0.225 t/ha) but not significant. Two varieties, Sufi and Bijoy had sig­
nificant main negative grain yield effects of -0.0326 t/ha and -0.228 t/ha,
respectively. Rest of the four wheat varieties had small and insignificant negative
effects. Similar findings were also reported by Tara­ kanovas and Ruzgas (2006) on
the additive main effect and multiplicative interaction analysis studies on winter
wheat varieties across 4 locations and 2 years with respect to grain yield were tested
in Luthiana
Table 3
The most powerful interpretive tool in analysis of G x E interaction in AMMI
model is the biplot analyses. The biplot technique was used to identify appropriate
genotype to special environments. The IPCA scores of a genotype in the AMMI
analysis were showed an indication of the adaptability over environments. The
closer the IPCA scores are to zero, the more stable the genotypes are across their
testing environments. In AMMI I biplot, the (PCA I scores of genotype and
environments were plotted against their respective mean grain yield. The
magnitude and signal of the scores of the IPCA I was observed for interpretation
of this biplot. AMMI I biplot for grain yield of the eight varieties at eight
environmental conditions were presented in Fig. 2. The main effects of genotypes
and environments accounted for 74.54% and IPCA I accounted for 16.34% of total
variation and therefore, the AMMI I biplot gave a model fit of 90.88% of G x E sum
of squares.
Considering the IPCA I scores it become clear that the variety Prodip was the most
stable genotype, it was well adapted to the high yielding sites or environments
whereas the variety Sufi was stable with low mean grain yield. The variety Gourab,
Bijoy and BAW 1059 were far away from the origin, there fore, unstable with below
mean yield and showed moderate to high positive interaction. Th is result
supports the findings of Yan and Tinker (2006). stated the genotypes that
have the longest distance from the origin in their direction, were showed the
most responsive genotypes.
Fig.2. AMMI I biplot of main effects and G x E interaction of 8 spring Wheat
genotypes in eight environmentst Wheat genotypes : 1-Sourav. 2-Gourab. 3-
Sharabdi. 4-Sufi.5-Bijoy,. 6-Prodip. 7-BAW1059. 8-BAW1064; environmenrs: A-
8 Nov B-15 Nov,.. C-22 Nov.. D-19 Nov.. E-6 Dec.. F-13 Dec.. G-20 Dec.. H,27 Dec

The variety BAW 1064 was regarded as sensitive to environmental changes

With the highest mean yield and might be recommended for cultivation under
favorable environments. Under intensive agricul­ ture when there are no
limitations of input. BA \V 1064 is able to produce the maximum yield. The
variety Sourav and Shatabdi had low mean yield With high negative
interaction. It also implies that most G x E interaction is due to the fact
that the variety Shatabdi and Gaurab has grain yield below average and
large IPCA I scores value in the trial. As a result. these varieties are the
most suitable for cultivation in poor environments.
The biplot was also showed the yield of a variety at the individual
environment. The variety BAWl064 showed the best performance for
favorable high yielded environment C (22-Nov.) and D (29- Nov.). Similarly.
the variety Gourab. Bijoy and BA\VI059 were yielded better in environment
F (13- Dec.). Among the environmental conditions. the environments C
(22-Nov.), D (29-Nov.) and B (l5-Nov.) had high mean but the first two
environments showed high negative interaction. The environment E
(6-Dec.) showed above mean negligible interaction, while the environment
A showed the minimum interaction effect. Although the environment G
(20-Dec.) and H (27-Dec.) showed moderate positive interaction, their
mean effects were very low.
The AMMI II biplot for grain yield of the eight spring wheat genotypes is
shown in Fig. 3. In this biplot, the IPCA I and IPCA II scores of genotype
and environments are plotted against each other. The IPCA I component
accounted for 64.21% ofGxf interaction, while [PCA II accounted for only
16.10%
(Table 2) and so the AMMI II biplot gave a model fit of80.31% of Gxl. interaction
sum of squares. Dis­ tribution of genotypes points in the AMMI II= biplot revealed
that the variety Prodip scattered very close to the origin in terms of both axes,
indicating almost negligible interaction of the genotype with envi­ ronments and
were considered as stable. The variety Sufi also scattered close to the origin,
indicating minimum interaction of the genotype with environments. The remaining
varietal scattered away from the origin indicating that these genotypes were
considerable sensitive to environmental interaction forces and were unstable.
With respect to the test environments, the environment B (I5-Nov.), D (29- Nov.)
and E (6-Dec.) scattered relatively close to the origin. The varietal differences at B
(I5-Nov.) envi­ ronment should be highly consistent with those averaged over
environments, because it had near zero scores compared to the environment of
C (22-Nov.) and D (29-Nov.) environments.
Fig. 3. AMMI II biplot of G x E interaction of 8 spring wheat genotypes
in eight environments (genotypes: l-Sourav, 2-Gourab, 3-Shatabdi,
4-SufL 5-Bijoy. 6-Prodip. 7-BAW1059, 8-BAWI064; environments: A-
8 Nov., B-15 Nov .. C-22 Nov .. D-29 Nov., E-6 Dec., F-13 Dec., G-20 Dec.,
H-27 Dec.)

Predicted yield of the 8 spring wheat varieties in the 8 environmental conditions

were estimated using AMMI II model (Naveed et al., 2009). The three top ranking
genotypes at the eight environmen­ tal conditions were shown in Table 4. The variety
BAWI064 and Prodip ranked among the top three in at least 5 of the 8 environmental
conditions indicating the capability of adaption in a wide range of envi­ ronments
with high yield. The variety Sourov and Shatabdi ranked among the top three in
3 of the 8 environments. Shatabdi could be suggested for early sowing whereas
Sourav for late. The variety Gourab, Bijoy and BAW1059 ranked among the top
three in at least one environmental condition and these were suggested for late
planting conditions.
The AMMI stability value (ASY) as described by Purchase (1997) on wheat and
Alberts (2004) on maize was calculated for each genotype in order to quantify and
rank genotypes according to their yield
Table 4. Predicted yield (t/ha) of spring wheat varieties in different
environmental conditions in AMMI II model
stability (Table 5). Purchase et al. (2000) stated that ASV is the distance from the
coordinate point to the origin in a two-dimensional of IPCA I scores against IPCA
II scores in the AMMI model. In ASV method, a genotype with least ASV score
revealed the most stable. Accordingly, the variety Prodip was found high stable with
high mean yield whereas Shatabdi was high unstable with below average yield.
The variety Prodip, Sufi, BAW1059 and BAW1064 having ASV value was lower
than the mean ASV value and was considered as stable. Among these four varieties.
Prodip and BAW1064 had higher grain yield than the grand mean, whereas the
variety Sufi and BAWI059 had low mean yield than the grand mean. The rest of the
four genotypes had high ASV value than mean ASV and their yield performances
were lower than grand mean. Therefore, they were unstable and suitable for specific
environments. The AMMI stability value confirmed the results of IPCA I and IPCA
II scores. These results are in good agreement with Farshadfar (2008) and Hagos
and Abay (2013) all of whom had used ASV as a method for evaluating grain yield
stability of bread wheat varieties.
Table 5. AMMI stability value (ASV) and ranking with the IPCA I and
II scores for grain yield of the eight spring wheat varieties across
environments

Conclusion
The study suggested that 29-Nov. is the optimum for the cultivation of
spring wheat under Bangla­ desh condition but it can be cultivated from
IS-Nov. to 06-0ec. with good average yield. These results concurred with
the findings of Khan et al. (2001) and Kabir et al. (2009). The variety Prodip
was consid­ ered the best in terms of adaptation to all environments with high
mean yield as it showed almost negligi­ ble interaction with environments.
The variety Sufi also exhibited minimum interaction with environ­ ments
with the lowest yield. On the contrary. SAW I 064 was regarded as
sensitive to environmental changes with the highest mean yield and might be
recommended for cultivation under favorable environments. Sourav, Gourab,
Shatabdi, Bijoy and SAW1059 showed sensitivity to environmental conditions
with below mean yield and these varieties were suitable for cultivation
under poor environments and therefore could be recommended for late
sowing. Therefore. Shatabdi could also be cultivated in early sowing
environments. This AMMI model analysis had also been exploited in the
variety evaluation of wheat (Abraha, 2003; Korkut et al .. 2007: Farshadfar.
2008: vlohammed Maarouf, 2009; Hintsa et al.,2011; Hagos and Abay.
2013). teff (Abay, 2008) and sorghum (Adugna. 2008) respectively.