Early Maturing Cotton Varieties in Regional Trial of Jiangsu Province: Comprehensive Analysis of Lint Yield Traits and Testing Sites Discrimination

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2024-0590

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to scientifically evaluate the yield, stability and adaptability of new early-maturing cotton varieties, as well as the discrimination and representativeness of the testing sites in Jiangsu Province, GGE biplot was used to analyze the lint yield data of the early-maturing group of varieties participating in the regional cotton trials in Jiangsu Province from 2018 to 2019. The results showed that the lint yield of the tested varieties was affected by genotype, environmental effect and genotype-environment interaction effect, among which environmental effect had the highest contribution rate (86.26 % in 2018 and 89.28 % in 2019). 'Zhongmian 425' showed the best yield in the two-year experiment, and had good stability and wide adaptability. In 2018, 'Xiang FZ031' had the best yield stability, 'Xumian 638' and 'Zhongmiansuo 50' had outstanding stability in 2019, and 'Simian 1035' had the most extensive adaptability in 2019. The evaluation of test sites showed that 'Xuzhou' (2018) and 'Dafeng' (2019) had the best variety discrimination and regional representativeness. The comprehensive analysis shows that 'Zhongmian 425' is an ideal variety with excellent comprehensive traits, which could be used as an important reference for the breeding and regional distribution of early-maturing cotton varieties in Jiangsu Province.

Key words: cotton, GGE biplot, productivity, stability, adaptability, regional trial

ZHAO Mingming, DU Furong, HU Xinyan, LI Ke, CHEN Xiaoguang. Early Maturing Cotton Varieties in Regional Trial of Jiangsu Province: Comprehensive Analysis of Lint Yield Traits and Testing Sites Discrimination[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2025, 41(20): 10-17.

Figures/Tables 7

References 34

[1]	喻树迅, 王寒涛, 魏恒玲, 等. 棉花早熟性研究进展及其应用[J]. 棉花学报, 2017, 29(sl):1-10. doi: 10.11963/1002-7807.ysxysx.20170825
[2]	喻树迅. 我国棉花生产现状与发展趋势[J]. 中国工程科学, 2013, 15(4):9-13.
[3]	张培通, 纪从亮, 陈建平, 等. 大麦后地膜精播棉的产量形成特点[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2010(5):119-121.
[4]	徐立华, 张培通, 杨长琴, 等. 不同育苗方式棉花的生长发育特性[J]. 江苏农业学报, 2007, 23(6):536-545.
[5]	杨长琴, 刘瑞显, 郭文琦, 等. 麦棉两熟不同种植方式棉花生育特性及产量构成[J]. 江苏农业学报, 2011, 27(5):944-949.
[6]	吴莘铃, 耿吉嘉, 曹丽芳, 等. 密度与化控对麦后直播棉产量及矿质元素积累的影响[J]. 棉花学报, 2020, 32(5):438-448. doi: 10.11963/1002-7807.wxlcdh.20200709
[7]	张群远, 孔繁玲, 杨付新. 我国作物品种区域试验的精确度研究[J]. 中国农业大学学报, 2001, 6(1):43-50.
[8]	张群远, 孔繁玲. 作物品种区域试验统计分析模型的比较[J]. 中国农业科学, 2002, 35(4):365-371.
[9]	SILVAK B, BRUZI A T, ZUFFO A M, et al. Adaptability and phenotypic stability of soybean cultivars for grain yield and oil content[J]. Genetics and molecular research, 2016, 15(2):1-11.
[10]	XU N Y, FOK M, ZHANG G W, et al. The application of GGE biplot analysis for evaluating test locations andmega-environment investigation of cotton regional trials[J]. Journal of integrative agriculture, 2014, 13(9):1921-1933.
[11]	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.
[12]	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, 2022,20:6939-6946.
[13]	ANNICCHIARICO P. Joint regression vs AMMI analysis of genotype-environment interactions for cereals in Italy[J]. Euphytica, 1997, 94(1):53-62.
[14]	VAN EEUWIJK F A, MALOSETTI M, YIN X Y, et al. Statistical models for genotype by environment data: from conventional ANOVA models to eco-physiological QTL models[J]. Australian journal of agricultural research, 2005, 56(9):883-894.
[15]	ZOBEL R W, WRIGHT M J, GAUCH H G. Statistical analysis of a yield trial[J]. Agronomy journal, 1988, 80(3):388-393.
[16]	YAN W K, HUNT L A, SHENG Q L, et al. Cultivar evaluation and mega-environment investigation based on the GGE biplot[J]. Crop science, 2000, 40(3):597-605.
[17]	李辛村, 张恩和, 董孔军, 等. 用AMMI双标图分析糜子品种的产量稳定性及试点代表性[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2012, 20(4):422-426.
[18]	YAN W K, KANG M S, MA B, et al. GGE biplot vs. AMMI analysis of genotype-by-environment data[J]. Crop science, 2007, 47(2):643-655.
[19]	金石桥, 许乃银. GGE双标图在中国农作物品种试验中应用的必要性探讨[J]. 种子, 2012, 31(12):89-92.
[20]	YAN W K. GGEbiplot - a windows application for graphical analysis of multienvironment trial data and other types of two-way data[J]. Agronomy journal, 2001, 93(5):1111-1118.
[21]	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):2749-2760.
[22]	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):38-43,51.
[23]	孙宪印, 牟秋焕, 米勇, 等. 灌溉对14个小麦新品种(系)产量和农艺性状适应性的GGE分析[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2022, 40(5):24-31.
[24]	蒋彤晖, 叶夕苗, 余斌. 甘肃省马铃薯区试品种产量性状和环境鉴别力评价分析[J]. 核农学报, 2022, 36(6):1262-1272. doi: 10.11869/j.issn.100-8551.2022.06.1262
[25]	戴习彬, 王远, 周志林, 等. 菜用甘薯产量稳定性及试验点鉴别力综合分析[J]. 江苏农业学报, 2023, 39(1):22-29.
[26]	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
[27]	YAN W K, FRÉGEAU-REID J, PAGEAU D, et al. Genotype-by-environment interaction and trait associations in two genetic populations of oat[J]. Crop science, 2016, 56(3):1136-1145.
[28]	YAN W K. Crop Variety Trials: Data Management and Analysis[M]. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2014.
[29]	吴元奇, 潘光堂, 荣廷昭. 作物稳定性研究进展[J]. 四川农业大学学报, 2005(4):482-489.
[30]	王桂梅, 郝爱静, 邢宝龙. 基于 GGE 双标图分析山西大豆区试品种的稳定性及适应性[J]. 沈阳农业大学学报, 2023, 54(4):396-402.
[31]	彭靖涵, 程明军, 董志晓, 等. 12个饲用燕麦品种在四川的适应性评价分析[J]. 草地学报, 2023, 31(1):2128-2136.
[32]	邵阳, 郭延平, 周丙月, 等, 蚕豆产量组分的基因型与环境互作及稳定性分析[J]. 作物学报, 2024, 50(1):149-160.
[33]	许乃银, 张国伟, 李健, 等. 基于GGE双标图和比强度选择的棉花品种生态区划分[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2012, 20(11):1500-1507.
[34]	YAN W K, HUNT L A. Interpretation of genotype × environment interaction for winter wheat yield in Ontario[J]. Crop science, 2001, 41(1):19-25.

年份	品种	代码	小区皮棉产量/kg	位次
2018	徐棉608	g1	2.41bB	2
	赣棉02号	g2	2.18eE	5
	湘FZ031	g3	2.32cC	3
	中棉425	g4	2.60aA	1
	中棉所50	g5	2.2dD	4
2019	中棉425	g1	2.64aA	1
	徐棉608	g2	2.47bB	4
	徐棉638	g3	2.32cC	6
	泗棉1035	g4	2.52bB	2
	GB521	g5	2.49bB	3
	中棉所50	g6	2.47bB	5

年份	品种	代码	小区皮棉产量/kg	位次
2018	徐棉608	g1	2.41bB	2
	赣棉02号	g2	2.18eE	5
	湘FZ031	g3	2.32cC	3
	中棉425	g4	2.60aA	1
	中棉所50	g5	2.2dD	4
2019	中棉425	g1	2.64aA	1
	徐棉608	g2	2.47bB	4
	徐棉638	g3	2.32cC	6
	泗棉1035	g4	2.52bB	2
	GB521	g5	2.49bB	3
	中棉所50	g6	2.47bB	5

年份	试验地点	编号	经度(E)	纬度(N)	海拔/m	土壤类型
2018	大丰	E1	120°36′	33°12′	40	沙壤土
	东台	E2	120°18′	32°50′	416	棕壤土
	连云港	E3	119°25′	34°36′	37.5	壤土
	六合	E4	118°56′	32°13′	113	壤土
	泗阳	E5	118°40′	33°41′	64	泥质沙壤土
	太仓	E6	121°8′	31°26′	123	粘壤土
	徐州	E7	117°24′	34°18′	19	沙壤土
	盐城	E8	120°9′	33°23′	111.4	沙壤土
2019	大丰	E1	120°36′	33°12′	40	沙壤土
	东台	E2	120°18′	32°50′	416	棕壤土
	六合	E3	118°56′	32°13′	37.5	壤土
	南通	E4	120°38′	32°8′	113	壤土
	泗阳	E5	118°40′	33°41′	64	泥质沙壤土
	太仓	E6	121°8′	31°26′	123	粘壤土
	徐州	E7	117°24′	34°18′	19	沙壤土
	盐城	E8	120°9′	33°23′	111.4	沙壤土

年份	试验地点	编号	经度(E)	纬度(N)	海拔/m	土壤类型
2018	大丰	E1	120°36′	33°12′	40	沙壤土
	东台	E2	120°18′	32°50′	416	棕壤土
	连云港	E3	119°25′	34°36′	37.5	壤土
	六合	E4	118°56′	32°13′	113	壤土
	泗阳	E5	118°40′	33°41′	64	泥质沙壤土
	太仓	E6	121°8′	31°26′	123	粘壤土
	徐州	E7	117°24′	34°18′	19	沙壤土
	盐城	E8	120°9′	33°23′	111.4	沙壤土
2019	大丰	E1	120°36′	33°12′	40	沙壤土
	东台	E2	120°18′	32°50′	416	棕壤土
	六合	E3	118°56′	32°13′	37.5	壤土
	南通	E4	120°38′	32°8′	113	壤土
	泗阳	E5	118°40′	33°41′	64	泥质沙壤土
	太仓	E6	121°8′	31°26′	123	粘壤土
	徐州	E7	117°24′	34°18′	19	沙壤土
	盐城	E8	120°9′	33°23′	111.4	沙壤土

年份	变异来源	自由度(df)	平方和(SS)	均方(MS)	F	占总变异比例/%
2018	区组	16	0.150	0.009	1.695
	基因型 (G)	4	2.584	0.646	117.047^**	5.96
	环境 (E)	7	37.414	5.345	968.553^**	86.26
	基因型与环境互作 (GE)	28	2.873	0.103	18.592^**	6.62
	误差	64	0.353	0.006
	总变异	119	43.373
2019	区组	16	0.703	0.044	3.570^**
	基因型 (G)	5	1.283	0.257	20.855^**	2.29
	环境 (E)	7	50.110	7.159	581.730^**	89.28
	基因型与环境互作 (GE)	35	3.046	0.087	7.072^**	5.43
	误差	80	0.984	0.012
	总变异	143	56.126