GGE-biplot Based on R Language: Application in Regional Trial of Sugar Beet Varieties

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-0173

Abstract

Abstract:

The aims are to clarify the yielding ability, yield stability, and adaptability of sugar beet varieties tested in different regional trials across China, and to identify the discriminability and representativeness of each test point. In 2020, 16 introduced KWS series sugar beet varieties were used as the test materials in 9 test bases in different ecological regions across the country. The sugar yield indicators of the varieties were analyzed by GGE biplot method based on R language. The results showed that KWS 0015(G₁₆) had the highest yield in the regional trial of sugar beet varieties in 2020. KWS 7748(G₆) and KWS 9921(G₁₅) had relatively stable yield; and KWS 0015(G₁₆) was the ideal variety for most test bases because of its strong regional adaptability, high and stable yield compared with other varieties. In addition, Hohhot (E₉) had higher discriminability and better representativeness, and was an ideal pilot area for this study. In conclusion, the GGE biplot method is scientific for the comprehensive analysis of genotype, and environment and genotype interaction effects of sugar beet varieties.

Key words: GGE biplot, R language, sugar beet, regional trial, sugar yield

JIANG Wanyue, HU Xiaohang, MA Yahuai, LI Yanli. GGE-biplot Based on R Language: Application in Regional Trial of Sugar Beet Varieties[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(8): 7-14.

Figures/Tables 10

References 33

[1]	马亚怀, 邱军, 陈连江, 等. 中国甜菜品种引进工作的现状与分析[J]. 中国糖料, 2013(1):72-75.
[2]	陈艺文, 李用财, 余凌羿, 等. 中国三大主产区甜菜糖业发展分析[J]. 中国糖料, 2017, 39(4):74-76,80.
[3]	张志民, 刘玉芬, 张景楼, 等. 国家甜菜品种区域试验辽宁凌海点试验结果初报[J]. 中国糖料, 2013(2):46-47.
[4]	高春燕, 秦军红, 徐建飞, 等. 基于联合分析方法的二倍体马铃薯群体抗旱性评价[J]. 植物遗传资源学报, 2021, 22(6):1542-1549.
[5]	王思威, 孙海滨, 常虹, 等. 基于主成分分析综合评价白糖罂荔枝果实品质[J]. 果树学报, 2022, 39(4):610-620.
[6]	张立军, 孙旭刚, 李盛有, 等. 国内外大豆种质耐荫性综合评价及相关鉴定指标的筛选[J]. 大豆科学, 2018, 37(4):493-502.
[7]	苏兰少, 林秀芳. 广西甜玉米新品种主要性状的灰色关联度分析[J]. 现代农业科技, 2021(24):18-19,24.
[8]	张春艳, 吴荣华, 庄克章, 等. 基于熵值赋权的DTOPSIS法对不同玉米品种在鲁南地区的综合评价研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(23):8-14. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2020-0401
[9]	董维, 邓伟, 吕莹, 等. 利用AMMI模型分析云南省杂交籼稻区试优质品种产量基因型与环境互作[J]. 杂交水稻, 2022, 37(2):19-26.
[10]	李余良, 熊婷, 刘建华, 等. 基于GGE双标图分析广东省甜玉米品种多点试验产量性状[J]. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(24):18-24. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2020-0664
[11]	昝凯, 陈亚光, 徐淑霞, 等. 基于R语言的GGE双标图在大豆区试中的应用[J]. 大豆科技, 2019(4):16-20.
[12]	严威凯. 双标图分析在农作物品种多点试验中的应用[J]. 作物学报, 2010, 36(11):1805-1819. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2010.01805
[13]	严威凯, 盛庆来, 胡跃高, 等. GGE叠图法─分析品种×环境互作模式的理想方法[J]. 作物学报, 2001(1):21-28.
[14]	AKTA H. Tracing highly adapted stable yielding bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes for greatly variable south-eastern Turkey[J]. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, 2016, 14(4):159-176.
[15]	柳娜, 曹东, 王世红, 等. 基于GGE双标图的甘肃春小麦区试品系稳产性和试点代表性分析[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2018, 46(4):39-48.
[16]	李余良, 熊婷, 刘建华, 等. 基于GGE双标图分析广东省甜玉米品种多点试验产量性状[J]. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(24):18-24. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2020-0664
[17]	齐慧冬, 齐照明, 侯萌, 等. 基于GGE双标图的大豆油分多环境的稳定性分析[J]. 大豆科学, 2016, 35(1):11-17.
[18]	余泽恩, 罗莉霞, 张芳, 等. 基于GGE双标图的国家冬油菜区试长江中游区环境及品种适应性评价[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2020, 59(6):20-27.
[19]	罗俊, 张华, 邓祖湖, 等. 用GGE双标图分析甘蔗品种性状稳定性及试点代表性[J]. 应用生态学报, 2012, 23(5):1319-1325.
[20]	张祯勇, 高明文, 徐国伦, 等. 基于R语言的GGE双标图在玉米品种区域试验中的应用[J]. 中国农学通报, 2014, 30(34):238-243. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.2014-1448
[21]	YAN W K, HOLLAND J B. A heritability-adjusted GGE biplot for test environment evaluation[J]. Euphytica, 2010, 171(3): 355-369. doi: 10.1007/s10681-009-0030-5 URL
[22]	AMARE K B, GETAHUN A. Adaptability and stability analysis of groundnut genotypes using AMMI model and GGE-biplot[J]. Journal of crop science & biotechnology, 2017, 20(5):343-349.
[23]	ERDEMCI I. INVESTIGATION OF GENOTYPE × ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION IN CHICKPEA GENOTYPES USING AMMI AND GGE BIPLOT ANALYSIS[J]. Turkish journal of field crops, 2018, 23(1):20-26.
[24]	JALATA Z. GGE-biplot analysis of multi-environment yield trials of barley (Hordeium vulgare L.) genotypes in southeastern Ethiopia highlands[J]. International journal of plant breeding & genetics, 2011, 5(1):59-75.
[25]	YAN W, TINKER N A. Biplot analysis of multi-environment trial data: Principles and applications[J]. Canadian journal of plant science, 2006, 86(3):623-645. doi: 10.4141/P05-169 URL
[26]	SINGH C, GUPTA A, GUPTA V, et al. Genotype x environment interaction analysis of multi-environment wheat trials in India using AMMI and GGE biplot models[J]. Crop breeding and applied biotechnology, 2019, 19:309-318.
[27]	MAHMUDUL H H M, RAFII MOHD Y, RAMLEE S I, et al. AMMI and GGE biplot analysis for yield performance and stability assessment of selected Bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea L. Verdc.) genotypes under the multi-environmental trails (METs)[J]. Scientific reports, 2021, 11(1):1-17. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-79139-8
[28]	李北齐, 王皙玮. 基因型与环境互作效应对甜菜根产量和含糖率的影响[J]. 中国糖料, 2008(3):69-71.
[29]	郭敏杰, 邓丽, 任丽, 等. 基于R语言的AMMI和GGE双标图在花生区试中的应用[J]. 花生学报, 2017, 46(2):24-31.
[30]	BADU-APRAKU B, FAKOREDE B, AKINWALE R, et al. Application of the GGE Biplot as a statistical tool in the breeding and testing of early and extra-early maturing maize in sub-Saharan Africa[J]. Crop breeding, genetics and genomics, 2020, 2(3).
[31]	李本贵, 阎俊, 何中虎, 等. 用AMMI模型分析作物区域试验中的地点鉴别力[J]. 作物学报, 2004(6):593-596.
[32]	许乃银, 荣义华, 李健, 等. GGE双标图在陆地棉高产稳产和适应性分析中的应用——以长江流域棉区国审棉花新品种‘鄂杂棉30’为例[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2017, 25(6):884-892.
[33]	许乃银, 张国伟, 李健, 等. 基于GGE双标图的棉花品种生态区划分[J]. 应用生态学报, 2013, 24(3):771-776.

编号	参试甜菜品种在各试验点平均块根产量/(kg/hm²)											位次
编号	E₁		E₂	E₃	E₄	E₅	E₆	E₇	E₈	E₉	平均	位次
G₁	75803.79		82504.13	67831.67	73717.97	40258.42	48822.95	63080.08	60709.70	63881.98	64067.86	9
G₂	78203.91		84504.23	58134.22	73027.46	61182.55	47694.69	66362.29	55122.76	72852.13	66342.69	6
G₃	83404.17		97421.54	55886.63	77622.93	52806.06	38463.46	62977.51	78710.60	84913.34	70245.14	4
G₄	83304.17		74587.06	50987.40	60407.78	53250.53	39001.95	61028.69	56616.16	82731.41	62435.02	10
G₅	80704.04		76003.80	14217.88	59026.76	57814.86	24360.19	60515.85	68176.74	76609.89	57492.22	14
G₆	80304.02		89671.15	63083.96	78527.74	61541.54	50412.78	74260.12	61589.75	96732.11	72902.57	2
G₇	86804.34		67003.35	33158.22	61050.67	53848.85	25975.66	62849.30	58162.91	20910.14	52195.94	16
G₈	75903.80		82087.44	48664.05	62884.10	62567.23	40309.71	65541.74	73883.69	48184.23	62225.11	11
G₉	86204.31		80004.00	55457.32	63288.88	57404.58	44130.41	64362.19	68150.07	76973.55	66219.48	7
G₁₀	90604.53		84754.24	56164.42	69955.88	59233.73	42412.38	58105.47	70710.20	84792.12	68525.89	5
G₁₁	74603.73		79503.98	32981.45	67479.56	54823.25	34565.83	68823.95	65483.27	57457.42	59524.72	13
G₁₂	75903.80		80670.70	53866.33	70051.12	61695.39	41335.40	65823.80	53882.69	79761.56	64776.76	8
G₁₃	76503.83		71753.59	56922.04	61026.86	64567.33	45258.67	62362.09	46815.67	31759.16	57441.03	15
G₁₄	79203.96		100255.01	59346.40	68360.56	62396.28	47925.47	61951.82	58069.57	18849.43	61817.61	12
G₁₅	76703.84		95088.09	69245.89	72860.79	65712.69	54566.83	62464.66	83204.16	71518.73	72373.96	3
G₁₆	76103.81		91837.93	75786.62	72551.25	56515.65	59259.37	77875.69	80004.00	105156.77	77232.34	1
试点内平均		80016.50	83603.14	53233.41	68240.02	57851.18	42780.99	64899.08	64955.75	67067.75
位次	2		1	8	3	7	9	6	5	4

编号	参试甜菜品种在各试验点平均块根产量/(kg/hm²)											位次
编号	E₁		E₂	E₃	E₄	E₅	E₆	E₇	E₈	E₉	平均	位次
G₁	75803.79		82504.13	67831.67	73717.97	40258.42	48822.95	63080.08	60709.70	63881.98	64067.86	9
G₂	78203.91		84504.23	58134.22	73027.46	61182.55	47694.69	66362.29	55122.76	72852.13	66342.69	6
G₃	83404.17		97421.54	55886.63	77622.93	52806.06	38463.46	62977.51	78710.60	84913.34	70245.14	4
G₄	83304.17		74587.06	50987.40	60407.78	53250.53	39001.95	61028.69	56616.16	82731.41	62435.02	10
G₅	80704.04		76003.80	14217.88	59026.76	57814.86	24360.19	60515.85	68176.74	76609.89	57492.22	14
G₆	80304.02		89671.15	63083.96	78527.74	61541.54	50412.78	74260.12	61589.75	96732.11	72902.57	2
G₇	86804.34		67003.35	33158.22	61050.67	53848.85	25975.66	62849.30	58162.91	20910.14	52195.94	16
G₈	75903.80		82087.44	48664.05	62884.10	62567.23	40309.71	65541.74	73883.69	48184.23	62225.11	11
G₉	86204.31		80004.00	55457.32	63288.88	57404.58	44130.41	64362.19	68150.07	76973.55	66219.48	7
G₁₀	90604.53		84754.24	56164.42	69955.88	59233.73	42412.38	58105.47	70710.20	84792.12	68525.89	5
G₁₁	74603.73		79503.98	32981.45	67479.56	54823.25	34565.83	68823.95	65483.27	57457.42	59524.72	13
G₁₂	75903.80		80670.70	53866.33	70051.12	61695.39	41335.40	65823.80	53882.69	79761.56	64776.76	8
G₁₃	76503.83		71753.59	56922.04	61026.86	64567.33	45258.67	62362.09	46815.67	31759.16	57441.03	15
G₁₄	79203.96		100255.01	59346.40	68360.56	62396.28	47925.47	61951.82	58069.57	18849.43	61817.61	12
G₁₅	76703.84		95088.09	69245.89	72860.79	65712.69	54566.83	62464.66	83204.16	71518.73	72373.96	3
G₁₆	76103.81		91837.93	75786.62	72551.25	56515.65	59259.37	77875.69	80004.00	105156.77	77232.34	1
试点内平均		80016.50	83603.14	53233.41	68240.02	57851.18	42780.99	64899.08	64955.75	67067.75
位次	2		1	8	3	7	9	6	5	4

编号	参试甜菜品种在各试验点平均含糖率/%											位次
编号	E₁		E₂	E₃	E₄	E₅	E₆	E₇	E₈	E₉	平均	位次
G₁	13.73		14.37	11.70	14.63	16.43	16.83	17.99	17.65	16.40	15.53	1
G₂	15.75		12.48	8.26	11.37	14.05	14.67	14.33	15.40	11.33	13.07	16
G₃	13.29		11.97	9.15	11.54	15.33	14.73	16.20	16.13	12.72	13.45	15
G₄	14.37		13.33	10.41	13.74	14.97	15.00	17.12	16.51	13.44	14.32	3
G₅	15.28		11.52	9.14	12.08	14.43	15.63	17.13	16.96	14.20	14.04	9
G₆	14.10		11.90	8.96	11.24	15.11	14.37	16.28	15.09	12.87	13.32	4
G₇	14.05		14.26	10.92	13.19	16.37	14.97	17.40	16.42	9.69	14.14	7
G₈	15.08		12.12	9.45	12.40	15.60	14.80	15.57	16.39	12.72	13.79	13
G₉	16.08		12.80	10.24	12.40	15.29	14.80	16.99	17.04	12.81	14.27	5
G₁₀	14.38		12.76	10.29	13.26	16.15	15.47	16.46	16.23	12.94	14.22	6
G₁₁	15.11		12.27	9.17	12.11	15.38	15.93	17.58	16.22	12.09	13.99	10
G₁₂	14.67		12.79	8.90	11.90	15.14	14.77	15.71	16.22	12.01	13.57	14
G₁₃	14.28		13.65	9.82	12.86	15.68	15.50	16.51	17.27	13.83	14.38	2
G₁₄	14.68		14.95	10.67	13.12	14.95	15.97	16.74	16.34	9.37	14.09	8
G₁₅	15.00		12.18	9.78	12.20	15.73	14.93	16.21	16.24	11.02	13.70	12
G₁₆	14.69		11.86	9.57	12.27	15.31	14.93	16.38	16.81	13.47	13.92	11
试点内平均		14.66	12.83	9.78	12.52	15.37	15.21	16.54	16.43	12.56
位次	5		6	9	8	3	4	1	2	7

编号	参试甜菜品种在各试验点平均含糖率/%											位次
编号	E₁		E₂	E₃	E₄	E₅	E₆	E₇	E₈	E₉	平均	位次
G₁	13.73		14.37	11.70	14.63	16.43	16.83	17.99	17.65	16.40	15.53	1
G₂	15.75		12.48	8.26	11.37	14.05	14.67	14.33	15.40	11.33	13.07	16
G₃	13.29		11.97	9.15	11.54	15.33	14.73	16.20	16.13	12.72	13.45	15
G₄	14.37		13.33	10.41	13.74	14.97	15.00	17.12	16.51	13.44	14.32	3
G₅	15.28		11.52	9.14	12.08	14.43	15.63	17.13	16.96	14.20	14.04	9
G₆	14.10		11.90	8.96	11.24	15.11	14.37	16.28	15.09	12.87	13.32	4
G₇	14.05		14.26	10.92	13.19	16.37	14.97	17.40	16.42	9.69	14.14	7
G₈	15.08		12.12	9.45	12.40	15.60	14.80	15.57	16.39	12.72	13.79	13
G₉	16.08		12.80	10.24	12.40	15.29	14.80	16.99	17.04	12.81	14.27	5
G₁₀	14.38		12.76	10.29	13.26	16.15	15.47	16.46	16.23	12.94	14.22	6
G₁₁	15.11		12.27	9.17	12.11	15.38	15.93	17.58	16.22	12.09	13.99	10
G₁₂	14.67		12.79	8.90	11.90	15.14	14.77	15.71	16.22	12.01	13.57	14
G₁₃	14.28		13.65	9.82	12.86	15.68	15.50	16.51	17.27	13.83	14.38	2
G₁₄	14.68		14.95	10.67	13.12	14.95	15.97	16.74	16.34	9.37	14.09	8
G₁₅	15.00		12.18	9.78	12.20	15.73	14.93	16.21	16.24	11.02	13.70	12
G₁₆	14.69		11.86	9.57	12.27	15.31	14.93	16.38	16.81	13.47	13.92	11
试点内平均		14.66	12.83	9.78	12.52	15.37	15.21	16.54	16.43	12.56
位次	5		6	9	8	3	4	1	2	7

编号	参试甜菜品种在各试验点平均产糖量/(kg/hm²)											位次
编号	E₁		E₂	E₃	E₄	E₅	E₆	E₇	E₈	E₉	平均	位次
G₁	8259.40		8855.46	7475.34	10761.14	3065.30	7626.50	10521.71	7371.09	4114.81	7561.19	3
G₂	7861.85		8028.26	4532.44	8339.66	3981.13	6491.78	8829.78	6185.58	3247.55	6388.67	13
G₃	8644.11		10235.31	4820.11	8932.68	3761.01	5262.12	9473.75	9148.27	4236.91	7168.25	6
G₄	7475.53		8033.05	5011.40	8331.61	3701.22	5433.49	9700.05	6494.02	4364.64	6505.00	10
G₅	8279.82		8696.15	1229.76	7149.52	3870.66	3547.20	9621.78	7993.38	4278.66	6074.10	15
G₆	9340.84		12159.40	5351.98	8809.87	4280.62	6725.15	11222.82	7193.09	4874.13	7773.10	2
G₇	8724.58		8734.54	3415.61	7923.31	4093.51	3609.68	10159.80	6598.32	797.04	6006.27	16
G₈	8136.31		8737.29	4359.47	7759.81	4530.13	5539.40	9471.19	8507.34	2409.45	6605.60	9
G₉	7922.88		8561.40	5344.15	7860.61	4079.86	6069.59	10162.34	8231.97	3870.99	6900.42	7
G₁₀	8834.83		9126.03	5445.51	9264.22	4445.94	6091.83	8878.11	8177.22	4317.64	7175.70	5
G₁₁	7591.77		8548.89	2841.56	8188.95	3924.03	5115.47	11239.30	6785.25	2729.09	6329.37	14
G₁₂	7292.62		8200.11	4533.63	8353.66	4315.84	5668.09	9599.63	6644.14	3768.99	6486.30	11
G₁₃	8760.71		9382.13	5261.78	7896.91	4694.52	6510.49	9563.22	5695.12	1734.00	6610.99	8
G₁₄	7348.51		7316.70	5973.57	8931.16	4325.45	7112.40	9637.19	6361.39	700.80	6411.91	12
G₁₅	7667.30		9316.99	6385.30	8847.87	4823.71	7565.19	9398.80	9598.10	3098.91	7411.35	4
G₁₆	7930.54		9179.97	6838.88	8889.10	4022.46	8223.20	11844.29	9803.47	5577.66	8034.40	1
试点内平均		8129.48	8944.48	4926.28	8515.01	4119.71	6036.97	9957.73	7549.23	3382.58
位次	4		2	7	3	8	6	1	5	9