Multivariate analyses to display interactions between environment and general or specific combining ability in hybrid crops

Crop Science

Volumn 46, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 957-967

  De La Vega, Abelardo J ^a   Chapman, Scott C ^b  

^a Advanta Semillas   (Argentina)

^b CSIRO   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HELIANTHUS; HELIANTHUS ANNUUS;

EID: 33644967741     PISSN: 0011183X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2135/cropsci2005.08-0287     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Basford, K.E., and M. Cooper. 1998. Genotype x environment interactions and some considerations of their implications for wheat breeding in Australia. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 49:153-174.
2. Basford, K.E., P.M. Kroonenberg, I.H. DeLacy, and P.K. Lawrence. 1990. Multiattribute evaluation of regional cotton variety trials. Theor. Appl. Genet. 79:225-324.
3. Bertero, H.D., A.J. de la Vega, G. Correa, S.E. Jacobsen, and A. Mujica. 2004. Genotype and genotype-by-environment interaction effects for grain yield and grain size of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) as revealed by pattern analysis of international multi-environment trials. Field Crops Res. 89:299-318.
4. Chapman, S.C., and A.J. de la Vega. 2002. Spatial and seasonal effects confounding interpretation of sunflower yields in Argentina. Field Crops Res. 73:107-120.
5. Chapman, S.C., J. Crossa, K.E. Basford, and P.M. Kroonenberg. 1997. Genotype by environment effects and selection for drought tolerance in tropical maize. II. Three-mode pattern analysis. Euphytica 95:11-20.
6. Comstock, R.E., and H.F. Robinson. 1952. Estimation of average dominance of genes. p. 494-516. In J.W. Gowen (ed.) Heterosis. Iowa State College Press, Ames, IA.
7. Cooper, M., and I.H. DeLacy. 1994. Relationships among analytical methods used to study genotypic variation and genotype-by-environment interaction in plant breeding multi-environment experiments. Theor. Appl. Genet. 88:561-572.
8. de la Vega, A.J., and S.C. Chapman. 2006. Defining sunflower selection strategies for a highly heterogeneous target population of environments. Crop Sci. 46:136-144.
9. de la Vega, A.J., S.C. Chapman, and A.J. Hall. 2001. Genotype by environment interaction and indirect selection for yield in sunflower. I. Two-mode pattern analysis of oil and biomass yield across environments in Argentina. Field Crops Res. 72:17-38.
10. de la Vega, A.J., A.J. Hall, and P.M. Kroonenberg. 2002. Investigating the physiological bases of predictable and unpredictable genotype by environment interactions using three-mode pattern analysis. Field Crops Res. 78:165-183.
11. Fox, P.N., and A.A. Rosielle. 1982. Reducing the influence of environmental main-effects on pattern analysis of plant breeding environments. Euphytica 31:645-656.
12. Gabriel, K.R. 1971. The biplot-graphical display of matrices with applications to principal component analysis. Biometrika 58:453-467.
13. Gabriel, K.R. 1978. Least squares approximation of matrices by additive and multiplicative models. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Series B 40:186-196.
14. Gauch, H.G. 1988. Model selection and validation for yield trials with interaction. Biometrics 44:705-715.
15. Granlund, M., and D.C. Zimmerman. 1975. Effect of drying conditions on oil content of sunflower (H. annuus L.) seeds as determined by wide-line nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR). North Dakota Acad. Sci. Proc. 27(part 2):128-132.
16. Harshman, R.A., and M.E. Lundy. 1984. Data preprocessing and the extended PARAFAC model. p. 216-284. In H.G. Law et al. (ed.) Research methods for multimode data analysis, Praeger, New York.
17. Kang, M.S. 1998. Using genotype-by-environment interaction for crop cultivar development. Adv. Agron. 62:199-252.
18. Kearsey, M.J. 1965. Biometrical analysis of a random mating population: A comparison of five experimental designs. Heredity 20:205-235.
19. Kroonenberg, P.M. 1983. Three-Mode Principal Components Analysis: Theory and Applications. DSWO Press, Leiden, the Netherlands. 398 p.
20. Kroonenberg, P.M. 1994. The TUCKALS line: A suit of programs for three-way data analysis. Comp. Statist. Data Anal. 18:73-96.
21. Kroonenberg, P.M. 1997. Introduction to biplots for G x E tables. Research Report #51. Centre for Statistics. The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld 4072 Australia.
22. Kroonenberg, P.M., and J. De Leeuw. 1977. TUCKALS": A principal component analysis of three mode data. Res. Bull. R.B. 001-77, Department of Data Theory, University of Leiden, Leiden, the Netherlands.
23. Kroonenberg, P.M., and K.E. Basford. 1989. An investigation of multiattribute genotype response across environments using three-mode principal components analysis. Euphytica 44:109-123.
24. Narro, L., S. Pandey, J. Crossa, C. De León, and F. Salazar. 2003. Using line x tester interaction for the formation of yellow maize synthetics tolerant to acid soils. Crop Sci. 43:1718-1728.
25. Patterson, H.D., and R. Thompson. 1975. Maximum likelihood estimation of components of variance. p. 197-207. In Proceedings of the 8th International Biometrics Conference.
26. Robinson, G.K. 1991. That BLUP is a good thing: The estimation of random effects. Statist. Sci. 6:15-51.
27. Tucker, L.R. 1966. Some mathematical notes on three-mode factor analysis. Psychometrika 31:279-311.
28. Yan, W. 2001. GGEbiplot- A Windows application for graphical analysis of multi-environment trial data and other types of two-way data. Agron. J. 93:1111-1118.
29. Yan, W., and L.A. Hunt. 2002. Biplot of diallel data. Crop Sci. 42:21-30.
30. Zhang, Y., M.S. Kang, and K.R. Lamkey. 2005. DIALLEL-SAS05: A comprehensive program for Griffing's and Gardner-Eberhart analyses. Agron. J. 97:1097-1106.