Maize Varieties (Strains) in Different Ecological Regions in Yunnan Province: Analysis of High Yield Potential, Yield Stability and Variety Adaptability

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-0253

Abstract

Abstract:

The study aims to screen new maize varieties with high quality in different ecological regions and under different cultivation conditions in Yunnan Province. Based on the grain yield data of 9 tested maize varieties in 15 test sites in Yunnan, the high yield potential, yield stability and variety adaptability of the tested maize varieties were analyzed by AMMI model and GGE biplot analysis method, and the discriminability and representativeness of the test sites were comprehensively evaluated. The results showed that the effects of genotype, environment and the genotype and environment interaction on maize yield were extremely significant. Comprehensive yield, AMMI model analysis and GGE biplot results showed that G3 (Wen 17-115), G6 (Wen 15-5851) and G5 (Wen 17-5313) were ideal varieties, and E15 (Puwen town site) and E2 (Shilin site) were well-integrated test sites, which had relatively strong discriminability and representativeness. AMMI model and GGE biplot analysis had different analysis emphases, but the evaluation results of the varieties were similar. The two methods could be complementary to each other and taken as the ideal tools for comprehensive and effective evaluation of varieties and test sites.

Key words: maize varieties (strains), AMMI model, GGE biplot, high yield, yield stability, adaptability

QIAN Shuanghong, CAI Shikun, ZHU Hanyong, WANG Shaobin, LI Zhengrun, WANG Yingmei, LI Shaoyun. Maize Varieties (Strains) in Different Ecological Regions in Yunnan Province: Analysis of High Yield Potential, Yield Stability and Variety Adaptability[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(9): 7-15.

Figures/Tables 8

References 32

[1]	袁江玥, 王春秀. 云南省玉米产业发展的宏观思考[J]. 云南农业科技, 2016(3):62-64.
[2]	张世煌. 我国玉米种业发展的现状与未来十年发展建议[J]. 作物杂志, 2012(5):3.
[3]	钱双宏, 蔡世昆, 王序英, 等. 18个玉米杂交组合主要农艺性状与产量的多元分析[J]. 天津农业科学, 2019, 25(11):7.
[4]	陈荣祥. 云南地区玉米育种技术要点与发展方向浅析[J]. 南方农业, 2020, 14(8):2.
[5]	冯素芬, 许蕊淇, 尹雪, 等. 云南省鲜食玉米育种,开发现状及发展方向[J]. 中国种业, 2021(5):5.
[6]	伍少云, 孙荣, 奉有壁. 云南省玉米地方种质资源类型及其品种的地理和生态分布[J]. 西南农业学报, 2004, 17(B05):6.
[7]	常文娟, 梁忠民, 李燕, 等. 云南省干旱分区及农业旱灾风险区划研究[J]. 灌溉排水学报, 2017, 36(2):8.
[8]	陈朝阳, 魏建伟, 陈淑萍, 等. 黄淮海夏玉米品种籽粒产量基因型与环境互作分析[J]. 分子植物育种, 2019, 17(8):12.
[9]	MULEMA J M K, ADIPALA E, OLANYA O M. Yield stability analysis of late blight resistant potato selections[J]. Crop sci, 2016, 56:1645-1661. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2015.10.0625 URL
[10]	HUANG X, JANG S, KIM B, et al. Evaluating genotype ×environment interactions of yield traits and adaptability in rice cultivars grown under temperate, subtropical and tropical environments[J]. Agriculture, 2021, 11(6):558-558. doi: 10.3390/agriculture11060558 URL
[11]	DEHGHANI H, SABAGHNIA N, MOGHADDAM M. Interpretation of genotype-by-environment interaction for late maize hybrids' grain yield using a biplot method[J]. Turkish journal of agriculture & forestry, 2009, 33(2):139-148.
[12]	叶美金, 卜俊周, 魏建伟, 等. 河北省夏玉米品种基因型与环境互作综合分析[J]. 玉米科学, 2020, 28(1):7.
[13]	汪洲涛, 苏炜华, 阙友雄, 等. 应用AMMI和HA-GGE双标图分析甘蔗品种产量稳定性和试点代表性[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2016(6):11.
[14]	毛文博, 苏成付, 毛瑞喜, 等. 山东省玉米品种区域试验基因型与环境互作效应分析[J]. 青岛农业大学学报:自然科学版, 2020, 37(4):9.
[15]	GAUCH, JR, HUGHN. et al. Statistical analysis of yield trials by ammi and gge: further considerations[J]. Crop science, 2008, 48(3):866-889. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2007.09.0513 URL
[16]	YAN W, KANG M S, MA B, et al. GGE biplot vs. ammi analysis of genotype-by-environment data[J]. Crop science, 2007, 47(2):641-653.
[17]	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):8.
[18]	黄大明, 谢雄泽, 白桂萍, 等. AMMI模型和GGE双标图在湖北省油菜区域试验中的应用[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2018, 57(12):6.
[19]	李雪, 丁逸帆, 左示敏, 等. 基于AMMI模型和GGE双标图对2018年江苏省水稻杂交中粳品种区域试验结果的评价分析[J]. 杂交水稻, 2021, 36(3):7.
[20]	曹元元, 丁逸帆, 左示敏, 等. 基于GGE双标图和AMMI模型对江苏省水稻区试品种的丰产性和稳定性分析[J]. 种子, 2021, 40(6):7.
[21]	朱艳彬, 孙九超, 王显, 等. 基于Genstat的AMMI模型和GGE双标图在玉米区域试验分析中的应用[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2021, 49(6):49-53.
[22]	魏常敏, 许卫猛, 邢永锋, 等. 黄淮海糯玉米品种基因型与环境互作效应分析[J]. 南方农业学报, 2021, 52(4):9.
[23]	岳海旺, 李春杰, 李媛, 等. 河北省春播玉米品种产量稳定性及试点辨别力综合分析[J]. 核农学报, 2018, 32(7):14.
[24]	孙宪印, 米勇, 王超, 等. 基因型和环境及其互作效应对旱肥地小麦产量性状的影响[J]. 分子植物育种, 2021, 19(17):5899-5908.
[25]	邵千顺, 梁继忠, 杨琳, 等. 基于AMMI模型和GGE双标图的宁夏山区旱地冬小麦品种筛选试验研究[J]. 宁夏农林科技, 2020, 61(4):1-4.
[26]	唐启义. 实用统计分析及其DPS数据处理系统[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2010.
[27]	周长军, 李泽宇, 王迪, 等. GGE双标图分析黑龙江省联合体玉米试验品种适应性和稳定性[J]. 黑龙江农业科学, 2020(08):1-5.
[28]	FRUTOS E, GALINDO M P, LEIVA V. An interactive biplot implementation in R for modeling genotype-by-environment interaction[J]. Stochastic environmental research & risk assessment, 2014, 28(7):1629-1641.
[29]	曾旭辉, 彭宏, 蒋厚良, 等. 利用R语言GGE双标图评价玉米区域试验——以2018年江苏淮北玉米区域试验为例[J]. 玉米科学, 2020, 28(5):60-66.
[30]	姚海梅, 王芳, 方永丰, 等. 甘肃省玉米区域试验品系产量稳定性及试点代表性分析[J]. 甘肃农业大学学报, 2016, 51(6):17-23.
[31]	杨明羡. 关中灌区玉米高产高效品种的筛选[D]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2021.
[32]	鲁月, 张子惠, 陆洲, 等. 基于AMMI模型和GGE双标图对江苏省甜玉米区域试验的分析[J]. 分子植物育种, 2022(1):1-11.

试点	试点代码	海拔/m	经度(E)	纬度(N)	年平均气温/℃	年降水量/mm
会泽县	E1	2220	103°17′	26°25′	14.4	761.9
石林县	E2	2150	103°36′	24°41′	18.0	1012.2
施甸县	E3	1985	99°05′	24°58′	18.5	860.9
文山市	E4	1290	104°39′	23°30′	19.3	976.5
弥勒市	E5	1750	103°31′	24°21′	19.3	864.3
宣威市	E6	1985	103°35′	26°56′	15.5	893.9
昭通市	E7	1885	103°35′	27°23′	13.3	584.6
巍山县	E8	1732	100°23′	25°30′	17.4	573.1
禄丰县	E9	1870	102°08′	25°01′	17.2	748.8
临翔区	E10	1450	100°06′	23°55′	18.5	715.6
凤仪镇	E11	1990	100°30′	25°58′	17.0	991.7
华宁县	E12	1586	102°55′	24°11′	17.4	654.0
威信县	E13	1127	105°04′	27°54′	14.4	749.7
富宁县	E14	530	105°44′	23°36′	21.1	1143.3
普文镇	E15	580	101°23′	22°33′	23.8	815.2

试点	试点代码	海拔/m	经度(E)	纬度(N)	年平均气温/℃	年降水量/mm
会泽县	E1	2220	103°17′	26°25′	14.4	761.9
石林县	E2	2150	103°36′	24°41′	18.0	1012.2
施甸县	E3	1985	99°05′	24°58′	18.5	860.9
文山市	E4	1290	104°39′	23°30′	19.3	976.5
弥勒市	E5	1750	103°31′	24°21′	19.3	864.3
宣威市	E6	1985	103°35′	26°56′	15.5	893.9
昭通市	E7	1885	103°35′	27°23′	13.3	584.6
巍山县	E8	1732	100°23′	25°30′	17.4	573.1
禄丰县	E9	1870	102°08′	25°01′	17.2	748.8
临翔区	E10	1450	100°06′	23°55′	18.5	715.6
凤仪镇	E11	1990	100°30′	25°58′	17.0	991.7
华宁县	E12	1586	102°55′	24°11′	17.4	654.0
威信县	E13	1127	105°04′	27°54′	14.4	749.7
富宁县	E14	530	105°44′	23°36′	21.1	1143.3
普文镇	E15	580	101°23′	22°33′	23.8	815.2

变异来源	df	SS	MS	占总平方和百分比/%	占交互作用百分比/%	F	Prob.
总的	404	1529140804.9111	3785001.9924	-	-
处理	134	1508182996.9111	11255096.9919	98.63	-	144.9997^**	0.0001
基因	8	173255677.6111	21656959.7014	11.33	-	279.0072^**	0.0001
环境	14	661907176.9111	47279084.0651	43.29	-	609.0977^**	0.0001
交互作用	112	673020142.3889	6009108.4142	44.01	-	77.4155^**	0.0001
PCA1	21	248042719.4396	11811558.0686	-	36.86	3.7278^**	0.0001
PCA1	19	158872594.5044	8361715.5002	-	23.61	2.6390^**	0.0003
PCA3	17	91834905.3484	5402053.2558	-	13.65	1.7049^*	0.0417
残差	55	174269923.0965	3168544.0563	-	25.89
误差	270	20957808.0000	77621.5111	-

变异来源	df	SS	MS	占总平方和百分比/%	占交互作用百分比/%	F	Prob.
总的	404	1529140804.9111	3785001.9924	-	-
处理	134	1508182996.9111	11255096.9919	98.63	-	144.9997^**	0.0001
基因	8	173255677.6111	21656959.7014	11.33	-	279.0072^**	0.0001
环境	14	661907176.9111	47279084.0651	43.29	-	609.0977^**	0.0001
交互作用	112	673020142.3889	6009108.4142	44.01	-	77.4155^**	0.0001
PCA1	21	248042719.4396	11811558.0686	-	36.86	3.7278^**	0.0001
PCA1	19	158872594.5044	8361715.5002	-	23.61	2.6390^**	0.0003
PCA3	17	91834905.3484	5402053.2558	-	13.65	1.7049^*	0.0417
残差	55	174269923.0965	3168544.0563	-	25.89
误差	270	20957808.0000	77621.5111	-

	变量	产量平均	离差	PCA1	PCA2	PCA3	Dg或De	位次
品种	G1	10433.4667	27.3148	-25.0032	27.5866	-1.8530	27.65	5
	G2	9734.4667	-671.6852	-5.8171	43.3468	-44.2446	61.94	1
	G3	11288.5667	882.4148	-39.9714	-48.7118	1.9112	48.75	3
	G4	10198.2667	-207.8852	-44.7158	-1.9575	17.3866	17.50	8
	G5	11212.9333	806.7815	26.0458	5.5094	16.7544	17.64	7
	G6	11298.3667	892.2148	-11.0699	13.1246	26.0684	29.19	4
	G7	9532.7333	-873.4185	22.4213	10.2679	-0.1599	10.27	9
	G8	9992.4333	-413.7185	54.5864	-5.2973	25.0814	25.64	6
	G9	9964.1333	-442.0185	23.5241	-43.8686	-40.9444	60.01	2
环境	E1	12004.2222	1598.0704	-24.5191	12.9938	-0.9092	13.03	11
	E2	8983.0000	-1423.1519	-9.7572	-25.5711	31.4860	40.56	3
	E3	9868.1667	-537.9852	-35.7860	53.1701	-2.5750	53.23	1
	E4	11225.1111	818.9593	21.7666	12.9274	9.1433	15.84	10
	E5	10485.6111	79.4593	-10.5958	5.5027	-1.2614	5.65	15
	E6	9654.1111	-752.0407	-21.4098	-24.9792	-15.3996	29.35	6
	E7	10742.3889	336.2370	-15.7201	14.2663	25.5594	29.27	7
	E8	13477.5000	3071.3481	19.4765	-4.8070	-4.9090	6.87	14
	E9	10344.5556	-61.5963	45.2829	6.3511	-26.4648	27.22	8
	E10	9037.8333	-1368.3185	31.4374	13.4796	37.3922	39.75	4
	E11	11596.7778	1190.6259	10.9121	-2.1821	-8.1516	8.44	12
	E12	10277.8889	-128.2630	-29.2207	-19.3265	-10.6306	22.06	9
	E13	8853.9444	-1552.2074	-8.8812	4.3243	-33.6114	33.89	5
	E14	8691.1667	-1714.9852	35.7497	-1.9141	-7.7850	8.03	13
	E15	10850.0000	443.8481	-8.7352	-44.2351	8.1169	44.97	2