Published in

CSIRO Publishing, Crop and Pasture Science, 5(70), p. 453, 2019

DOI: 10.1071/cp18547

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Effect of genotype × environment × management interactions on chickpea phenotypic stability

Journal article published in 2019 by Peter Kaloki ORCID, Richard Trethowan ORCID, Daniel K. Y. Tan
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

Crop varieties interact with the environment, which affects their performance. It is imperative to know how the environment affects these crop varieties in order to choose carefully the optimal environment for growth. Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is grown in varying environmental conditions including conventional and no-tillage under both irrigated and rainfed farming systems. Hence, genotype × environment × management interactions can affect yield stability. An experiment was conducted in north-western New South Wales, Australia, to investigate these interactions and to determine possible environment types to help focus crop improvement. Eight environments were considered and genotype plus genotype × environment interaction (GGE) biplots were generated to assess genotype stability and interactions with environment. Genotype and environment main effects and genotype × environment interactions (GEI) accounted for 12.6%, 66% and 12% of the total variation in yield, respectively. The most productive and stable environments were not tilled, irrespective of moisture status. The most stable and productive genotype was Sonali, closely followed by PBA Slasher and ICCV 96853. The eight test environments grouped into two environment types that differentiated on the basis of tillage regime. Moisture was not a determinant of site grouping.